Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs, identified as former employees of the defendants, brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. They alleged failures to pay minimum wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours pay, along with failures to provide wage notices and pay stubs. The plaintiffs moved for certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on their New York Labor Law claims. The defendants A Taste of Mao, Inc. and Zhenqi Xiao cross-moved to dismiss the complaint and sought to decertify the FLSA collective action.

Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended denying class certification because the plaintiffs’ counsel was inadequate to serve as class counsel. He also recommended denying the defendants’ cross-motion. No party objected to the report. Judge Daniels therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.

Class Certification

The court adopted the recommendation to deny class certification. It agreed that John Troy and Troy Law PLLC would not adequately represent the proposed class. The court relied on the firm’s conduct in several earlier FLSA and New York Labor Law cases, where it had been sanctioned or reprimanded for problems representing class plaintiffs. The court also cited counsel’s conduct in this case, including failures to comply with court rules and deadlines and failure to timely and diligently pursue a motion to add multiple defendants, which led to denial of the request to amend the complaint.

Because class certification was denied based on inadequate class counsel, the court did not address the remaining class-certification requirements.

Motion to Dismiss and Collective Action

The court denied the Taste of Mao defendants’ motion to dismiss. It explained that the motion relied on evidence outside the pleadings, including plaintiffs’ affidavits. Considering that evidence would have converted the motion into a motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge had previously denied the defendants’ request to file a summary-judgment motion, in part because it was untimely, and the defendants could not avoid that ruling by labeling the motion as a dismissal motion.

The court also agreed that the defendants had not adequately explained the basis for dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims or the grounds for decertifying the FLSA collective action. The court noted that the defendants’ memorandum cited only Rule 23, which did not apply to their request to decertify the FLSA collective action. The court also accepted the magistrate judge’s decision not to consider new arguments raised in the defendants’ reply brief.

Disposition

Judge Daniels adopted the report and recommendation. The plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 23 class certification was DENIED. The Taste of Mao defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss was DENIED. The clerk was directed to close the motions accordingly. The opinion did not decide the underlying wage claims.