Zhang v. Four Seasons Beauty Spa, Inc.

Background

Wen Zhang alleged that Four Seasons Beauty Spa Inc. and other defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law during his approximately ten months of employment at Four Seasons Beauty Spa and Five Stars Beauty Spa. The order did not decide those wage-and-hour claims. It addressed only Yan Chao Zhang’s cross-motion to dismiss the claims against her for insufficient service of process.

Wen Zhang argued that service was effective because a process server allegedly delivered the summons and complaint to an individual named “Kevin” at 57 West Eighth Street in New York on October 12, 2018, and mailed the papers to that address. He contended that the address was Yan Chao Zhang’s actual place of business, allowing service under New York’s business-service rule.

Yan Chao Zhang argued that 57 West Eighth Street was not her actual place of business when service occurred because she had sold Four Seasons Beauty Spa Inc. before the events underlying the case. She also challenged aspects of the process server Marcel Holley’s service, including a discrepancy in the license number listed on his affidavit and questions about whether his license was valid when he allegedly served “Kevin.”

Hearing and Evidence

The court held an evidentiary hearing on October 3, 2022 and directed the parties to present there all evidence they wanted the court to consider on the motion. Wen Zhang testified as the only witness for the plaintiff. Yan Chao Zhang and her coworker Jiao Yuan testified for the defense about whether the address was Zhang’s actual place of business.

Wen Zhang did not present evidence about Marcel Holley’s license, the details of the alleged service, or Holley’s testimony. He also did not introduce Holley’s affidavit of service. The court questioned whether it could consider the affidavit for its truth without Holley’s testimony because the affidavit could constitute hearsay, meaning an out-of-court statement offered to prove what it asserts. The court allowed briefing on that issue, but Wen Zhang missed the deadline and the court denied his late request for an extension.

Court’s Analysis

When a defendant challenges service of process, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that service was adequate. The court concluded that this burden included showing both that Holley was qualified to serve process and that he actually served Yan Chao Zhang in a legally sufficient manner.

The court found that Wen Zhang addressed the actual-place-of-business issue at the hearing but did not address the separate challenges concerning Holley and the alleged service itself. Because Wen Zhang introduced no facts supporting the sufficiency of that service, the court held that he had not met his burden.

Disposition

The court granted Yan Chao Zhang’s cross-motion to dismiss the case as against her. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and remove Yan Chao Zhang’s name from the case caption. The order did not resolve the claims against the remaining defendants. It stated that Wen Zhang could apply for default judgment against those defendants under the court’s individual rules, adjourned the scheduled show-cause hearing indefinitely, and directed Wen Zhang to report whether the order required changes to other docket submissions.