Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs, former employees of defendants’ restaurants, brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law seeking unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-time pay, payroll records, wage notices, and detailed paystub information. The original complaint, filed on February 2, 2017, did not contain a jury demand.

Plaintiffs later sought permission to amend the complaint for limited purposes, including adding individuals who had filed forms to join the federal wage claims, adding related factual allegations, and changing or removing certain defendant names. The proposed amended complaint did not include a jury demand. The court granted the amendment request in part and denied it in part, and ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint conforming to that decision. The filed amended complaint added a paragraph demanding a jury trial.

Defendants moved to strike that demand. Plaintiffs argued that the amended complaint raised new issues, including different methods of wage payment, tip-credit questions, tip-pool allegations, and allegations concerning payment for all hours worked. Plaintiffs also asked the court to order a jury trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b) if the demand was untimely.

Governing Rules

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b)(1) requires a jury demand to be served no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue. An amended pleading revives that period only when the amendment changes the issues. The court explained that an “issue” requires more than new evidence or legal theories; the amendment must change the character of the case or require a factual determination outside the factual framework of the original pleadings.

Under Rule 39(b), a court may order a jury trial on an issue for which a timely demand was not made. The court stated that, under controlling appellate precedent, a party must show some cause beyond mere inadvertence before receiving that discretionary relief.

Discussion

The court first rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendants waited too long to move to strike the jury demand. It found defendants’ delay understandable because the demand was not included in the proposed amended complaint or authorized by the court, and because plaintiffs identified no meaningful prejudice from the delay beyond limited time spent preparing pretrial materials.

The court then held that the amended complaint did not raise a new factual issue. The different ways employees allegedly were denied overtime or paid less than the required wage remained within the same general dispute: whether defendants complied with federal and New York wage requirements, whether they provided required notices, and what damages were owed if violations were proven. The court also held that adding parties did not itself revive a previously waived jury-trial right. The individuals added to the caption had already joined the federal wage claims and participated in discovery, while the addition of New York-law claims on their behalf did not move the case outside the original dispute.

Finally, the court declined to use its Rule 39(b) discretion to order a jury trial. Plaintiffs had argued that a jury would not significantly reduce efficiency, but they did not identify a reason beyond inadvertence for failing to make a timely demand.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to strike the jury demand, Docket No. 280. The opinion did not decide the merits of plaintiffs’ wage claims.