Rene v. 31 East 21 Express Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-07435
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rene v. 31 East 21 Express, Judge Koeltl allowed an amended complaint and denied the pending dismissal motion without prejudice as moot.
The plaintiff and the appearing defendants, Pun San Laan Inc. and Thanaphan Laonutwuttikul. The plaintiff may file an amended complaint by March 17, 2023, and the pending motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice as moot.
What happened
In Rene v. 31 East 21 Express Inc. et al., the plaintiff asked to file an amended complaint instead of responding to two defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiff said the amendment would add allegations about whether the new restaurant owners could be responsible for earlier violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The defendants opposed the request, arguing that the plaintiff had given up the right to amend by not agreeing to do so during an earlier conference. The plaintiff disputed that argument and alternatively requested one more week to respond to the motion.
Judge John G. Koeltl allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by March 17, 2023. He denied the pending motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot and directed the Clerk to close that motion.
The detailed version
- Rene v. 31 East 21 Express Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07435
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 2, 2023
Background
The plaintiff asked the court for permission to file an amended complaint instead of opposing a motion to dismiss filed by Pun San Laan Inc. and Thanaphan Laonutwuttikul. The opinion states that these were the only defendants who had appeared in the matter.
The plaintiff said the proposed amendment would add substantial allegations concerning the factors in the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “substantial continuity” test. Specifically, the plaintiff intended to add information about the defendants’ notice of alleged violations by prior owners, the prior owners’ ability to provide relief, and the continuity between the restaurant under the prior owners and the new owners.
The defendants did not consent to the request. According to the plaintiff’s letter, they argued that the plaintiff had waived amendment by not agreeing to amend during a November 2022 conference before the motion to dismiss was filed. The plaintiff disagreed and alternatively requested a one-week extension to respond to the motion.
Ruling
The court allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by March 17, 2023. Judge John G. Koeltl denied the pending motion to dismiss, identified as ECF No. 92, without prejudice as moot. The Clerk was directed to close ECF No. 92.
Effect of the Order
The order addressed the opportunity to amend and the pending motion to dismiss. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims in detail or decide whether the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act allegations ultimately succeed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.