Sapon Baquiax v. Abasushi Fusion Cuisine Inc.

Background

Tomas Benjamin Sapon Baquiax and Santos Pubaquiax brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Baquiax alleged that he worked as a delivery worker at the restaurant from May 20, 2014, through approximately December 2015. He said he also cleaned, prepared food, and performed other non-delivery work. According to Baquiax, he generally worked between 73 and 78.50 hours per week but received a fixed weekly salary of $300 or $350. He also alleged that the defendants withheld $10 from his daily tips for delivery-platform and credit-card fees.

The defendants Liang Ping Xie and Liang He Xie moved for summary judgment against Baquiax. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is available when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result. The defendants argued that Baquiax lacked admissible evidence that they were his employers and that he lacked admissible evidence of unpaid wages. Baquiax opposed the motion, relying primarily on his own testimony, declaration, and records produced by the defendants.

The case’s ownership and management history was disputed. Ping said he bought the restaurant in 2013, sold it to a person known as Jake or Jackie Chan in or around May 2014, and never hired Baquiax. He said he later became an owner or manager through Blue Choy. He said he worked for Blue Ginger part time, was not its owner or manager, and never employed Baquiax. The court noted inconsistencies in the evidence about when Blue Ginger owned the restaurant and who held ownership interests.

Court’s Analysis of Summary Judgment

The court held that genuine disputes of material fact made summary judgment inappropriate. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employer may include a person who acts directly or indirectly in an employer’s interest. The court applied the economic-reality test, which examines whether the alleged employer had power to hire or fire workers, controlled schedules or working conditions, determined pay, and kept employment records.

Baquiax testified that Ping hired him, that both Ping and He set his schedule, and that they directed his work. He also testified that He sometimes paid him in cash and that he regarded both men as his bosses. Although Baquiax initially could not recall some details during his deposition, he was able to recall them after reviewing the allegations in his complaint. The court concluded that this testimony was not necessarily contradictory and could be considered at the summary-judgment stage.

The court also found sufficient evidence to create a factual dispute about unpaid work. Baquiax described his weekly hours, pay, additional duties, and tip deductions. Records produced by the defendants covered a limited period but listed an hourly rate that was below the required minimum wage. The court said that Baquiax’s credibility and the conflicting accounts of his employment were matters for a jury, not for resolution on summary judgment. The court did not decide whether the defendants ultimately violated the wage laws.

Pubaquiax’s Claims

The court separately dismissed Pubaquiax’s claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). His lawyers had sought permission to withdraw because he was not cooperating. Pubaquiax did not respond to the court’s order concerning that request, did not provide his contact information to the Pro Se Office after counsel withdrew, and had not otherwise appeared in the action.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Pubaquiax’s claims without prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate Pubaquiax from the docket, and ordered the parties to file a joint status report within 30 days about next steps and whether they wanted a settlement conference.