Sosa v. Bentis Fresh Bread Inc.

Background

Nelson Sosa and Ruben Velez brought a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. They alleged that they worked as truck drivers for Bentis Fresh Bread from 2013 and 2007, respectively, until 2020. They claimed that they were scheduled to work 80 to 90 hours per week, paid a fixed weekly amount, and received no additional overtime pay or breaks. They also alleged that defendants deducted fees and penalties from their wages, failed to pay the required minimum wage, failed to keep accurate work-hour records, failed to provide wage statements, and required them to pay unreimbursed business expenses.

The defendants were Bentis Fresh Bread Inc., Olde Bakery Shoppe Inc., Anthony Bentivegna, and Louis Bentivegna. The opinion states that the two individual defendants are brothers and each owned one of the businesses. Plaintiffs alleged that the businesses operated as a joint venture and jointly employed them by sharing trucks, warehouse space, and employees and by jointly deciding wages, schedules, pay periods, delivery routes, and truck assignments.

Motions and Legal Standard

Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to present a legally plausible claim. In response, plaintiffs cross-moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

Under Rule 15, courts generally should allow an amendment when justice requires, unless there is undue delay, bad faith, unfair prejudice, or futility. An amendment is futile if the proposed complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss.

Joint-Employer Allegations

The court concluded that the SAC did not adequately allege a formal joint-employment relationship based only on statements tracking the legal factors for employer status. Those factors include control over hiring and firing, work schedules and conditions, pay, and employment records.

The court nevertheless found that the SAC adequately alleged a functional joint-employment relationship. The allegations that defendants shared employees, delivery trucks, and warehouse space and jointly made employment and business decisions went beyond merely reciting legal conclusions. The court described the allegations as sufficient, “if only barely,” to allow the claims against all defendants to proceed past the pleading stage. The court stated that discovery would require plaintiffs to support those allegations with specific examples and proof.

Motor Carrier Exemption

Defendants also argued that the Motor Carrier Act exemption excluded plaintiffs from the FLSA’s overtime protections because they were truck drivers carrying goods that traveled in or affected interstate commerce. The court treated that exemption as an affirmative defense, meaning defendants bore the burden of establishing it.

On a motion based only on the complaint, the court could dismiss on that defense only if the defense appeared on the face of the complaint. The court held that the SAC did not establish the exemption. It also rejected the argument that plaintiffs had to plead facts disproving the exemption. The court noted that defendants could raise relevant arguments later, including at the summary-judgment stage.

Disposition

The court held that the proposed SAC was not futile and that it stated plausible claims under the FLSA and New York law. It granted plaintiffs’ cross-motion for leave to amend. Because the amendment made the existing dismissal motions moot, the court denied as moot defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The court directed plaintiffs to file the SAC as a standalone document by September 24, 2021, and directed defendants to respond within the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This order resolved the pleading and amendment motions; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the wage claims.