Collado v. Adolfo Meat Market Corp.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-09366
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Collado v. Adolfo Meat Market, Judge Furman denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the wage-and-hour lawsuit.
The plaintiffs’ wage-and-hour and Section 7434 claims were allowed to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage, and the defendants must answer the complaint and participate in the scheduled case proceedings.
What happened
In Collado v. Adolfo Meat Market Corp., the defendants asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ wage-and-hour claims. They supported the request with affidavits disputing the truth of the complaint’s allegations.
The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs’ claim under 26 U.S.C. § 7434(a) should be dismissed because they had not properly provided the Internal Revenue Service with a copy of the complaint. The opinion states that the plaintiffs had provided the copy and filed proof of doing so before the motion was filed.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the motion. He stated that a motion to dismiss generally requires the court to assume well-pleaded allegations are true and not consider outside evidence. The defendants must file an answer within fourteen days, and the case will proceed toward settlement scheduling and an initial pretrial conference.
The detailed version
- Collado v. Adolfo Meat Market Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-09366
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 15, 2023
Background
Juan Collado and other plaintiffs sued Adolfo Meat Market Corp. and other defendants, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion describes the case as involving wage-and-hour claims. The complaint also included a claim under 26 U.S.C. § 7434(a).
On February 11, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court described the motion as “frivolous, if not sanctionable.” It explained that when deciding a motion to dismiss, the court must assume that well-pleaded allegations are true and generally may not consider evidence outside the complaint.
Arguments and Analysis
The defendants’ arguments about the wage-and-hour claims relied entirely on affidavits that disputed the truth of the complaint’s allegations. The opinion states that this type of factual dispute was not a proper basis for dismissal at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
The defendants’ other argument concerned the requirement in Section 7434(d) that a person bringing a Section 7434 action provide the Internal Revenue Service with a copy of the complaint when filing it. The defendants did not cite authority supporting dismissal based on a failure to provide the IRS with a copy of every version of a complaint. In addition, the plaintiffs had provided the IRS with a copy of their complaint and filed proof of that delivery months before the defendants filed their motion.
Ruling and Next Steps
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the defendants’ motion. The defendants were ordered to file an answer within fourteen days of the March 15, 2023 memorandum opinion and order. The parties were reminded to contact the assigned magistrate judge within one week after the answer is filed to schedule a settlement conference. The initial pretrial conference was rescheduled for April 19, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion from the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.