Sarikaputar v. Veratip Corp.

Background

Paranee Sarikaputar, Pedro Coj Cumes, Phouviengsone Sysouvong a/k/a Tukta Phouviengsone, Supunnee Sukasawett, Wipaporn Sittidej, Vinai Patan, Phaisit Sirimatrasit, Chaichana Kittironnakornkul a/k/a Kay Kittironnakornkul, and Supatra Wungmarn sued multiple corporate and individual defendants on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Sarikaputar and Cumes asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); the remaining plaintiffs asserted only New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims.

The plaintiffs alleged that, during their employment, the defendants failed to pay overtime and spread-of-hours wages, provide time-of-hire notices and paystubs, consistently provide breaks, and pay for work performed during breaks. They also alleged retaliation after complaints about inadequate pay. The defendants named in the motion were Michael Bronstein, Gift Rakowski, J Akira LLC d/b/a Tom Yum d/b/a M-Thai, Excel Restaurant Group Corp. d/b/a Charm’s, and Lucky Charm 6365 Corp. d/b/a Thais New York.

Motion-to-dismiss standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to plausibly support legal relief. At this stage, the court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true, draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiffs, and does not weigh evidence that might be presented at trial.

J Akira LLC and Lucky Charm 6365 Corp.

J Akira LLC’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied because it was untimely. Rule 12(b) requires that such a motion be filed before the answer. J Akira had filed an answer months before filing the motion. The court stated that a motion for judgment on the pleadings, rather than a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, is the proper procedure for challenging a complaint after an answer has been filed.

To the extent the moving defendants sought dismissal of claims against Lucky Charm 6365 Corp., that request was denied because Lucky Charm was not listed in the notice of motion and the memorandum of law did not present arguments concerning Lucky Charm.

Claim-splitting argument

The moving defendants also argued that the plaintiffs improperly split their claims between this case and an earlier related action. Claim-splitting is a case-management doctrine that generally prevents a party from pursuing in a later lawsuit claims arising from the same events when those claims could have been brought in an earlier lawsuit. Courts examine whether the two proceedings involve the same parties or legally related parties and the same transactions or series of transactions.

The court concluded that claim-splitting did not bar the claims against defendants the plaintiffs had previously tried, unsuccessfully, to add to the earlier related action. The court also concluded that plaintiffs who were not originally named in that earlier action could assert NYLL claims against J Akira LLC and Michael Bronstein because the same parties and claims were not involved. The court rejected the argument concerning Excel Restaurant Group Corp. because the moving defendants offered no support for it.

The court further noted that there were no FLSA claims pending against J Akira LLC or Michael Bronstein in this action. It stated that any motion to dismiss FLSA claims against those defendants was denied without prejudice as moot.

Michael Bronstein and Gift Rakowski

The court declined to consider evidence outside the complaint or convert the motion into one for summary judgment. Treating the request as a motion to dismiss, the court held that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that Bronstein and Rakowski were their employers. The allegations included that Rakowski had power to hire and fire employees, supervised and controlled schedules and working conditions, determined rates and methods of pay, maintained employment records, and managed several restaurants. The court relied on substantially similar reasoning it had used in an earlier related proceeding concerning allegations against Bronstein.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied the moving defendants’ motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, and the parties were directed to file a joint status report within 30 days proposing next steps. The opinion did not decide whether the plaintiffs would ultimately prevail on their wage-and-retaliation claims.