Zhang v. Sabrina USA Inc.

Background

Yu Zhang brought claims against Sabrina USA Inc., Qin Lan Inc., and Ai Lan Chen under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Zhang alleged that he worked as a busboy at Yumi Asian Bistro & Hibachi Steak House for one month, from May 25, 2016, through June 25, 2016. He alleged that he worked 68 hours per week, received no tips or overtime pay, was paid a flat daily wage of $25, did not receive wage statements in his native language, and was not told that tips were being credited toward his wages.

The defendants disputed Zhang’s allegations and disputed that he ever worked at Yumi Asian Bistro or for Ai Lan Chen. The court noted that there were very few undisputed facts. Earlier in the litigation, the court denied Zhang’s request for conditional collective-action certification after Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang declined to credit one of Zhang’s affidavits because of inconsistencies and found that the affidavit did not make the required modest showing that similarly situated employees existed.

Motion for Summary Judgment

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a request to decide a case without a trial when no important fact is genuinely disputed. They argued that Zhang had provided no reliable evidence, apart from his own affidavits and testimony, that he worked at the restaurant or for Ai Lan Chen. They identified inconsistencies involving the number of employees, transportation to the restaurant, Zhang’s work schedule, and the restaurant’s business hours. They also relied on affidavits from three non-party witnesses who said Zhang had never worked at Yumi Asian Bistro.

Zhang argued that whether he worked for the defendants was a genuinely disputed material fact. The court agreed. It explained that summary judgment rules required it to view the evidence and reasonable inferences in Zhang’s favor and that the court could not weigh evidence or decide witness credibility at this stage. Although the court recognized that Zhang’s testimony appeared self-serving and was contradicted by other evidence, the testimony was enough to create a genuine dispute about whether he worked at the restaurant. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Motion for Sanctions

The defendants also sought sanctions against Zhang’s counsel. They argued that Zhang had been lying and that his counsel continued to make arguments despite contradictions or retractions in Zhang’s deposition and testimony at the evidentiary hearing. The defendants also referred to an earlier sanctions ruling involving Zhang’s counsel in a different case.

The court denied without prejudice the motion for sanctions because it was premature. The court said it could not yet decide whether testimony was credible or whether representations to the court were intentionally misleading. It warned Zhang and his counsel that intentional misrepresentations could lead to serious consequences later, including payment of the defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs, referral of counsel to the Southern District of New York’s Grievance Committee, and other sanctions.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied without prejudice their motion for sanctions. It scheduled a conference for May 6, 2021, and ordered the parties to meet and submit a proposed schedule for trial dates and pretrial materials.