Mogollan v. La Abundancia Bakery & Restaurant Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-03202
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Mogollan v. La Abundancia, Judge Daniels denied both sides’ summary-judgment motions, certified the class, and refused decertification in wage litigation.
The ruling affected the employee plaintiffs, the defendants in the wage case, the certified class and FLSA collective, and Ibarra, whose claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
What happened
Mogollan v. La Abundancia Bakery & Restaurant Inc. is a wage case in which employees alleged violations of federal and New York minimum-wage and overtime laws. The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment and certification of a class, while the defendants sought partial summary judgment and decertification of the federal wage-law collective action.
The court rejected the recommendation to grant Mejia summary judgment on her New York minimum-wage claim because the defendants presented evidence creating a factual dispute about whether they had completely and timely paid her. The court otherwise adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, including that the parties’ other summary-judgment requests be denied and that the federal collective action remain certified.
Judge George B. Daniels granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and denied the defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment and decertification. The court also adopted the recommendation that Ibarra’s claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Mogollan v. La Abundancia Bakery & Restaurant Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-03202
- George Daniels
- Mar. 31, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs brought a collective and class action against La Abundancia Bakery & Restaurant Inc. and the other named defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. The claims included unpaid overtime, minimum-wage violations, time-shaving, spread-of-hours premiums, wage-notice violations, and related damages. The opinion describes employment at several La Abundancia locations and disputes about hours worked, off-the-clock work, tip credits, wage notices, and whether the defendants operated as a single enterprise.
The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and class certification. The defendants cross-moved for partial summary judgment and decertification of the FLSA collective action. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended granting only Mejia’s motion concerning her New York minimum-wage claim, denying the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, granting class certification, denying decertification, and dismissing Ibarra’s claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The defendants objected to the recommendations concerning Mejia’s New York minimum-wage claim and the adequacy of class counsel.
Summary-Judgment Rulings
The court denied the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the listed overtime, minimum-wage, time-shaving, spread-of-hours, wage-notice, liquidated-damages, limitations, employer-liability, and damages issues. The court found that genuine disputes of material fact remained, including disputes relevant to the amount of wages owed.
The court declined to adopt the recommendation that Mejia receive summary judgment on her New York minimum-wage claim. It held that the statutory defense allowing an employer to avoid certain wage-notice liability when it made complete and timely payment applied retroactively to the relevant period. The defendants presented evidence creating a genuine dispute about whether Mejia had been completely and timely paid. The court therefore denied Mejia’s motion on that claim. It also denied the defendants’ motion because Mejia presented evidence creating a factual dispute about payment.
Collective and Class Certification
The court denied the defendants’ motion to decertify the FLSA collective action. It adopted the finding that the named and opt-in plaintiffs were sufficiently similarly situated because they alleged violations arising from a common policy or practice, and that the defendants operated as a single enterprise.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. It found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s conclusions concerning numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of the class representatives, ascertainability, and the requirements for a damages class. The court also rejected the defendants’ challenge to class counsel, concluding that counsel’s deposition misconduct and prior conduct cited by the defendants did not show that counsel lacked the integrity or competence required to represent the class.
Disposition
Judge George B. Daniels granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. He denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and decertification. The court also adopted the recommendation to dismiss Ibarra’s claims without prejudice because she failed to appear for her deposition and failed to comply with an order to show cause.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.