Yan v. Renew Body Wellness, Inc

Background

Hong Yan alleged that Renew Body Wellness, Inc. and NYC Renew Body Wellness, Inc. failed to pay him wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. He alleged that he worked 11 to 12 hours per day, six days per week, received no wages, and instead relied on customer tips. He also alleged that the defendants issued salary checks and W-2 statements but required him to return the money in cash.

Yan moved to amend his complaint in two ways: first, to replace the individual defendants’ nicknames with their real names; and second, to add Renew Day Spa Inc., Renew Day Spa II Inc., Renew Day Spa III Inc., and Renew Regal Spa Inc. as corporate defendants. He also moved under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action involving current and former non-managerial staff who allegedly were not paid minimum or overtime wages.

Motion to Amend

Because Yan filed the amendment request after the scheduling-order deadline, the court applied the requirement that he show good cause, including diligence. The court found good cause to substitute the individual defendants’ real names. Yan had known those individuals only by nicknames, learned their real names through discovery, and filed his motion six days after defendants completed their document production. The court also found no shown prejudice because the individuals were already on notice of the claims.

The court rejected defendants’ argument that substituting the names would be futile. Yan alleged that the individual defendants owned and managed the companies, participated in daily operations, had authority to hire and fire workers, set wages and schedules, and maintained employment records. Although the allegations were described as sparse, the court found them sufficient at that stage to plausibly allege that the individuals were employers.

The court denied leave to add the four corporate defendants. Yan’s proposed allegations about working at, or being asked to work at, the additional spa locations were based on facts he knew before the amendment deadline. He did not show good cause for failing to add those companies earlier.

Accordingly, the court’s conclusion states that Yan’s motion to amend to substitute the individual defendants’ real names was GRANTED, while his motion to add additional corporate defendants was DENIED. The opinion also describes the overall motion to amend as GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Conditional Certification

At the first step of an FLSA collective action, a plaintiff must make a modest factual showing that the plaintiff and potential opt-in workers were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. The court emphasized that this standard is low but does not permit unsupported assertions.

Yan stated that conversations with and observations of other workers showed that they worked more than 40 hours, received no wages, and relied only on tips. But he did not identify the workers, state how many there were, or provide details about when and where the conversations or observations occurred. The court found that the payroll book produced in discovery also lacked enough information because it did not show the employees’ hours or hourly wages.

The court therefore found that Yan had not made the required factual showing that he and potential opt-in plaintiffs were victims of a common unlawful policy or plan. His motion to conditionally certify the FLSA collective action was DENIED.

Other Orders

The court extended fact discovery one final time until August 19, 2022. It ordered the parties to file a joint letter by July 18, 2022, listing intended deposition dates and identifying outstanding document discovery. The clerk was asked to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 45 and 51.