Yang v. An Ju Home, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-05616
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Yang v. An Ju Home, Inc., Judge Oetken denied plaintiffs’ request to reconsider dismissal of claims against four defendants.
The plaintiffs’ claims against Structure Enterprise, Inc., Trinity Builders, Inc., Paul Liou, and Candice Colucci remained dismissed under the earlier ruling; the motion for reconsideration was denied, and the plaintiffs were directed to address their claims against the remaining defendants.
What happened
In Yang v. An Ju Home, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision dismissing their Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims against four defendants.
The plaintiffs relied on affidavits from witnesses and also asked for permission to amend their complaint. The court said it could not consider new facts in reconsidering the earlier ruling and that the request to amend came too late.
Judge Oetken denied the motion for reconsideration. He directed the plaintiffs to file a status letter about how they propose to pursue claims against the remaining defendants.
The detailed version
- Yang v. An Ju Home, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05616
- James Oetken
- Feb. 2, 2021
Background
Youngfu Yang, Deliang Fu, Xiaojiang Zuo, Hechao Chen, Aixiang Liu, Kezheng Zuo, Shushan Hang, and Derong Zheng brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law against An Ju Home, Inc., Structure Enterprise, Inc., Trinity Builders, Inc., Hengjian Cui, Paul Liou, Candice Colucci, “John” Liou, and “Jane” Zhuo. The court had previously granted Structure, Trinity, Paul Liou, and Candice Colucci’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration.
Analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to situations involving an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence that could not previously have been presented, or a clear error or manifest injustice. The plaintiffs cited no new controlling decisions and instead relied primarily on affidavits from witnesses.
The court held that those affidavits could not be considered in reviewing the earlier Rule 12(c) decision. On a judgment-on-the-pleadings motion, the court may rely on the pleadings, documents attached to them, and matters subject to judicial notice. The court also stated that parties may not use reconsideration to present new facts or arguments that could have been raised earlier. Even if the affidavits were considered, the plaintiffs had not explained why the witnesses could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.
The plaintiffs also requested permission to amend their complaint. The court declined to grant that request because the plaintiffs had not sought amendment during briefing on the original Rule 12(c) motion and raised the request too late, in a reply brief on reconsideration.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice. The court directed the plaintiffs to file a status letter by February 26, 2021, addressing whether and how they proposed to pursue claims against the remaining defendants, including defendants who had not appeared. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 45.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.