Ametepe v. Peak Time Parking, Corp.

Background

The defendants filed four motions in limine, which are requests to resolve evidentiary or trial issues before trial. They asked the court to: (1) bar the plaintiffs from offering evidence about damages; (2) rule that the burden-shifting framework from Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. did not apply to the plaintiffs’ claims; (3) rule that the plaintiffs did not qualify for individual coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); and (4) take judicial notice of an earlier related complaint involving plaintiff Sabala.

The plaintiffs stated that they would voluntarily dismiss their FLSA claims and proceed only under the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The court dismissed the FLSA claims and retained supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining NYLL claims. The court explained that the case had progressed beyond summary judgment and was ready for trial, making continued federal-court supervision appropriate.

Damages Evidence

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ initial disclosures were inadequate because they listed only total damages amounts and did not provide supporting documents or the calculations underlying those amounts. The plaintiffs responded that the defendants had long known their damages theory, had questioned them about their calculations during depositions, and had received revised calculations before a settlement conference. They also argued that New York law places recordkeeping responsibilities on employers, allowing employees to rely on their testimony about hours worked.

The court denied the defendants’ first motion in limine. It allowed the plaintiffs to present testimony and other evidence about their damages calculations at trial. The court found that the disclosures were sparse and that the plaintiffs had not provided a coherent explanation for failing to give more detail earlier. But the court also found that excluding damages testimony would effectively destroy the plaintiffs’ NYLL case, that the defendants had opportunities during discovery to explore the calculations, and that requiring additional declarations would reduce any possible prejudice.

The court ordered each plaintiff to file a pretrial declaration by October 20, 2021 stating the total damages claimed and the calculations supporting that amount, including hours worked, rate of pay, and pay received. The court expected the declarations to be consistent with the plaintiffs’ deposition testimony.

Earlier Related Action Involving Sabala

The defendants asked the court to take judicial notice of an earlier related complaint involving Sabala. They proposed using that complaint to impeach him, arguing that his allegations about working at the same garage during the same period were inconsistent with his claims in this case. The plaintiffs argued that the earlier complaint was irrelevant and that any limited value would be outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, and the risk of misleading the jury.

The court denied the fourth motion in limine. It found that Sabala had not claimed to work different jobs for two employers at the same time. Instead, the record showed that he made the same factual claims in the earlier action, later voluntarily dismissed that claim after discovery indicated that the entity sued there was not his employer, and then brought this action against the defendants he identified as his employers.

The court ruled that the earlier complaint had no useful impeachment value and that presenting it would misleadingly suggest that Sabala claimed to work separate 12-hour shifts for two employers on the same days. The court therefore excluded the complaint under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 and barred the defendants from referring to the earlier action before the jury without the court’s advance permission.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied the defendants’ first and fourth motions in limine on the merits. The court denied the second and third motions in limine as moot because the plaintiffs withdrew their FLSA claims, which the court dismissed. The court also required the plaintiffs to file supplemental damages declarations by October 20, 2021.