Huang v. Shanghai City Corp
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-07702
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
Huer Huang v. Shanghai City Corp.: Judge Liman approved Mimi Si’s dismissal and denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ jury demands.
The ruling approved the dismissal of defendant Mimi Si and preserved plaintiffs’ right to a jury trial against the remaining defendants; it also denied the defendants’ effort to strike the jury demands.
What happened
In Huer Huang v. Shanghai City Corp., restaurant employees alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor law. The defendants asked the court to remove the plaintiffs’ jury demands and approve Mimi Si’s voluntary dismissal.
Mimi Si had demanded a jury trial in her answers, and the plaintiffs later filed their own demand. The plaintiffs also agreed to dismiss Mimi Si after discovery, which the defendants said showed she had not managed either restaurant and was not an employer under the federal or state labor laws. The case-management order had earlier identified the case as a non-jury matter.
Judge Lewis J. Liman approved the dismissal of Mimi Si and denied the motion to strike the jury demands. He ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on Mimi Si’s timely jury demand and that it had not been effectively withdrawn with the parties’ consent.
The detailed version
- Huang v. Shanghai City Corp · No. 1:19-cv-07702
- Lewis Liman
- June 27, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs are employees who worked at one of two restaurants using the name Joe’s Shanghai: one in Manhattan and one in Flushing, Queens. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law.
The plaintiffs’ original and first amended complaints did not include jury demands. The Shanghai Defendants’ answers also did not include jury demands. A case-management plan proposed by plaintiffs’ counsel, and later signed by the court, stated that the case was not to be tried to a jury.
Mimi Si later filed answers that demanded a jury trial “on all issues.” After that demand, plaintiffs filed their own jury demand. Plaintiffs then stipulated to dismiss Mimi Si without prejudice. The defendants sought court approval of that dismissal and asked the court to strike the jury demands.
Dismissal of Mimi Si
The court explained that a voluntary dismissal of FLSA claims requires court approval. The defendants represented, without contradiction, that discovery showed Mimi Si had no involvement in managing either restaurant and that the dismissal was not part of an FLSA or New York Labor Law settlement. Plaintiffs did not dispute those facts and consented to the dismissal.
The court approved the stipulation of dismissal. The opinion states that Mimi Si was dismissed because discovery indicated that she did not have liability under either the FLSA or the New York Labor Law. The conclusion states that the motion to dismiss Mimi Si was granted.
Jury Demand
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 allows a party to demand a jury trial within 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue. The court held that Mimi Si made a proper and timely jury demand in her answers. Once one party makes a proper demand, other parties may rely on it for the issues covered by that demand and do not need to file a second demand.
The court therefore held that plaintiffs were entitled to rely on Mimi Si’s demand for a jury trial on all issues. Mimi Si’s later dismissal did not eliminate plaintiffs’ jury-trial right. Under Rule 38, a jury demand may be withdrawn only with the parties’ consent; under Rule 39, a demanded jury trial must proceed before a jury unless the parties stipulate to a non-jury trial or the court determines that the issues are not jury-triable.
The court rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiffs had waived their jury right by checking a non-jury option in their proposed case-management plan. The plan was a proposal about discovery and case management, not a stipulation by all parties to a non-jury trial. The court’s earlier case-management order was also superseded as a matter of law once Mimi Si made her jury demand after that order was entered.
The court further concluded that plaintiffs had not clearly and unmistakably waived their jury right. Their later jury demand, although filed outside the 14-day period, supported their understanding that they could rely on Mimi Si’s demand. Because the demand was not effectively withdrawn, the trial had to proceed before a jury under Rule 39.
Disposition
The motion to dismiss Mimi Si was GRANTED, and the motion to strike the jury demands was DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the docket entry for the defendants’ motion.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.