Ji v. Aily Foot Relax Station Inc

Background

Yong Biao Ji sued Aily Foot Relax Station, Inc., doing business as Foot Relax Spa Station; Linda Foot Relax Spa Station, Inc., doing business as Foot Relax Spa Station; Xiang Man Zhang, also known as Ailing Zhang; and Ke Xue Zheng. Ji asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation. He also asserted New York Labor Law claims concerning the spread-of-hours premium and wage statements. Trial was scheduled to begin January 23, 2023.

The court considered two pretrial motions: Ji’s motion in limine, which sought to exclude specified evidence at trial, and defendants’ motion to disqualify Ji’s counsel, Troy Law, PLLC.

Ji’s Motion in Limine

Ji argued that evidence about his work authorization, immigration status, massage-service license, arrests, and criminal proceedings was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.

The court granted the motion as to work authorization. It held that immigration status was irrelevant to Ji’s wage claims because the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law protect citizens and undocumented workers alike. The court also held that Ji’s massage license was irrelevant to whether he qualified as an employee under those laws. The court therefore granted Ji’s motion to exclude evidence concerning his work authorization.

The court did not rule finally on evidence concerning complaints to police, arrests, or criminal history. Because defendants had not identified the purpose or evidentiary rules under which they might offer that evidence, the court could not assess its relevance or whether its value would be outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice or jury confusion. The court denied this part of Ji’s motion without prejudice to renewal if the issue arose during trial.

Motion to Disqualify Counsel

Defendants argued that Troy Law should be disqualified because it allegedly represented defense counsel, Ning Ye, as a creditor in a pending bankruptcy case. The court reviewed that bankruptcy docket and concluded that Troy Law did not represent Ye there. The filings suggested that Troy Law had proposed appearing for Ye but never actually did so.

The court further held that, even if Troy Law had represented Ye in the unrelated bankruptcy case, that fact alone would not establish a conflict requiring disqualification. Defendants had not shown a significant risk that Troy Law’s professional judgment for Ji would be adversely affected. The court therefore denied defendants’ motion to disqualify Troy Law.

Disposition

Ji’s motion in limine was granted in part and denied in part. Defendants’ motion to disqualify Ji’s counsel was denied. The court stated that the final pretrial conference would proceed as scheduled on January 18, 2023, and directed the clerk to terminate both motions.