Hernandez Linar v. El Valle 794 Rest., Corp.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-03102
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hernandez Linar v. El Valle 794 Rest., Judge Furman denied defendants’ motion to dismiss because it relied on evidence outside the complaint.
Prisciliano Hernandez Linar and the defendant restaurant corporation and other defendants. The defendants must answer the complaint, and all parties must comply with the court’s scheduling and settlement-conference requirements.
What happened
In Hernandez Linar v. El Valle 794 Rest., the defendants asked the court to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff’s version of events was inaccurate and pointing to time records, pay records, and wage notices.
The court denied the motion as frivolous. It explained that, at this stage, it could consider the complaint and certain related documents, but not the outside evidence on which the defendants based their motion. The court did not decide whether the plaintiff’s claims had merit.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the defendants to answer the complaint within two weeks and required the parties to follow earlier deadlines, including arranging a settlement conference. He also rescheduled the initial pretrial conference to July 12, 2022.
The detailed version
- Hernandez Linar v. El Valle 794 Rest., Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-03102
- Jesse Furman
- June 21, 2022
Background
On June 15, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. They argued that the plaintiff’s version of the facts was “100% inaccurate” and cited time and pay records and wage notices for the relevant period.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that on a motion to dismiss, it is generally limited to the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference, and documents on which the complaint relies so heavily that they are integral to it. The defendants’ motion was based entirely on documents and other outside evidence that the court could not consider at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
The court therefore denied the motion as frivolous. It expressly stated that it had not reviewed the defendants’ purported evidence and was not expressing a view on the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. The court warned that continuing to pursue plainly meritless claims can result in sanctions.
Order and effect
The defendants were ordered to answer the complaint within two weeks of June 21, 2022. The parties were also ordered to comply with the deadlines in the court’s April 15, 2022 order, including scheduling a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Netburn. The initial pretrial conference was rescheduled from June 28, 2022, to July 12, 2022, at 4:30 p.m.
Judge Jesse M. Furman’s order denied the motion to dismiss; it did not resolve the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.