Ji v. Aily Foot Relax Station Inc

Background

Yong Biao Ji filed a proposed class and collective action against Aily Foot Relax Station, Inc.; Linda Foot Relax Spa Station, Inc.; Xiang Man Zhang, also known as Ailing Zhang; and Ke Xue Zheng. The complaint asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

The pending matters were Ji’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims and seek sanctions, and Ji’s motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. Defendants’ amended answer included two purported counterclaims seeking sanctions based on alleged frivolousness. The court also treated portions of the amended answer as renewed motions to dismiss and a motion for a more definite statement.

Counterclaims and renewed motions

The court granted Ji’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims. It held that a request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 cannot be brought as a counterclaim. The court also noted that defendants had not shown they served a Rule 11 sanctions motion on Ji before filing it, as required by the rule. In addition, the court had already determined that Ji plausibly alleged claims under the FLSA, New York law, and New Jersey law, so defendants’ assertion that the case was frivolous did not warrant sanctions against Ji or his counsel.

To the extent defendants’ amended answer included motions for relief, the court denied all of those motions. The court explained that defendants had improperly renewed arguments from earlier denied motions to dismiss after filing a responsive pleading. It also stated that a motion for a more definite statement could not be made in a responsive pleading and that defendants provided no argument supporting that motion.

Possible sanctions against defense counsel

The court deferred ruling on Ji’s request for sanctions. It ordered defense counsel to file a letter of no more than three pages explaining why monetary sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 11. The court identified repeated motions to dismiss after earlier denials, an improper counterclaim, and the inclusion of improper motions and legal arguments in the amended answer. The court stated that these actions appeared to violate Rule 11 requirements against filings made for improper purposes or without legally supportable arguments. The letter was due by February 22, 2021.

Conditional collective-action certification

The court granted Ji’s motion for conditional certification under the FLSA. At this initial stage, a plaintiff must make a modest factual showing that the plaintiff and potential people who may join the case were victims of a common policy or plan that violated wage law. The court does not decide factual disputes, assess credibility, or resolve the ultimate merits at this stage.

Ji alleged that he and other masseuses—identified in the opinion as David, Amy, Jason, Peter, and Jack—worked at defendants’ New York or New Jersey locations. He alleged that they were paid only by the hour or half-hour when they had customers, without a base wage, and that they worked between 78 and 88 hours per week without receiving time-and-a-half overtime pay for hours over 40. The court found these allegations sufficient to show that Ji and potential opt-in plaintiffs could be similarly situated.

Disposition

The motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims was granted. All motions for relief included in defendants’ amended answer were denied. The ruling on Ji’s motion for sanctions was deferred, and defense counsel was ordered to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed. Ji’s motion for conditional collective-action certification was granted. The court stated that it would separately issue the proposed notice, and discovery was to proceed.