Cheng v. Via Quadronno LLC

Background

Chunyung Cheng, Shiguang Chen, and Marciano E. Espinal brought labor-law claims against Via Quadronno LLC, Via Quadronno 88 Street, Antica Bottega Del Vino, King Chung Lam a/k/a KC Lam, Xiu Yong Chen, and unidentified defendants. Cheng worked at the three restaurants at different times, Chen worked at Via Quadronno, and Espinal worked there as a dishwasher. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), including failure to pay overtime and failure to provide required time-of-hire wage notices.

The defendants moved under Rule 56 for partial summary judgment, under Rule 12(c) for partial judgment on the pleadings, to decertify the FLSA collective, and to strike the Rule 23 class allegations and jury demand. The court had previously allowed the plaintiffs to add Espinal as a named plaintiff and to add certain wage claims on his behalf, but had denied permission to add several claims for Cheng and Chen.

Judgment on the Pleadings

The court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Counts I, V, and VI of the Third Amended Complaint. Those counts alleged failure to pay minimum wage or unpaid wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, and failure to provide wage statements. The court held that these claims exceeded the limited permission previously granted to amend the complaint. The opinion states that these three counts were dismissed.

Claims Against Antica Bottega

The court granted summary judgment for Antica Bottega Del Vino on all claims against it. Cheng was the only plaintiff who worked there, and he stopped working there sometime in September 2014. The complaint was filed on October 26, 2020, more than six years later. The court held that Cheng’s claims against Antica Bottega were time-barred under both the FLSA and the NYLL.

The plaintiffs argued that wage statements from Via Quadronno used the same address as Antica Bottega. The court concluded that this evidence did not create a genuine dispute of material fact because the complaint did not allege facts showing that the restaurants were joint employers or a single integrated enterprise, and the plaintiffs offered no evidence that Antica Bottega had the authority needed to be an employer of workers at the other restaurants.

Espinal’s Overtime Claims

The court granted summary judgment on Espinal’s FLSA and NYLL claims for unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation. The defendants’ evidence showed that Espinal was paid above the applicable New York City minimum wage and received an overtime rate equal to one and one-half times his regular rate. The opinion identifies regular rates of $11, $12, $13, and $15 per hour during successive periods and corresponding overtime rates of $16.50, $18, $19.50, and $22.50.

The plaintiffs did not dispute those rates. Instead, they argued that Espinal’s recorded hours had been converted incorrectly from hours and minutes into decimal hours, resulting in underpayment for some regular and overtime minutes. The court rejected that argument at summary judgment because the Third Amended Complaint alleged that Espinal was paid a flat hourly rate without an overtime premium, not that his recorded time had been undercounted. The court held that the plaintiffs could not introduce a new claim or theory for the first time in opposition to summary judgment.

FLSA Collective

The court granted defendants’ motion to decertify the FLSA collective. The court explained that a collective action requires employees who opt in to be similarly situated. After conditional certification, Espinal was the only person who filed a consent to join, and he became a named plaintiff. Because there were no other opt-in plaintiffs besides the named plaintiffs, the court concluded that the case could not proceed as an FLSA collective.

Class Allegations

The court granted the motion to strike the Rule 23 class allegations. The court had set February 22, 2022, as the deadline for a class-certification motion, and the plaintiffs did not meet that deadline. Discovery had ended, and the court found that a late class-certification motion would prejudice defendants and complicate the scheduled trial. The plaintiffs did not identify good cause to modify the deadline.

Jury Demand and Disposition

The court granted the motion to strike the jury demand. The earlier complaints did not demand a jury, and the parties had previously informed the court that the case was not to be tried to a jury. The court held that the Third Amended Complaint did not raise new issues that would revive the waived jury-trial right. Adding Espinal as a named plaintiff also did not change the claims or add new issues.

In its conclusion, the court stated that defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment and to strike the collective-action allegations, class-action allegations, and jury demand was granted. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion docket entry.