Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:17-cv-00840
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
In Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Judge Broderick denied workers’ motion to certify a New York wage-law class because requirements and counsel adequacy were unmet.
The plaintiffs seeking certification of a New York Labor Law class, the proposed class members, Troy Law and John Troy as proposed class counsel, and the defendant restaurants and individual defendant were affected by the ruling. The court did not decide the merits of the wage claims.
What happened
In Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc., restaurant workers sought unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. They asked the court to certify a class for their New York Labor Law claims.
Judge Broderick found that the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence to show that the proposed class was large enough, and that employees at the two restaurants had sufficiently common claims. The restaurants had separate management and payroll systems, and the proposed class included unionized and non-unionized workers with different employment arrangements.
Judge Broderick also found that Troy Law and John Troy were not adequate to represent a class, citing sanctions, discovery delays, missed deadlines, and other litigation problems. The court denied the motion for Rule 23 class certification; the opinion did not decide whether the wage claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00840
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs sued Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Shun Lee Palace; T&W Restaurant, Inc., identified as Shun Lee West; and Michael Tong. They sought unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The motion addressed in this opinion sought certification under Rule 23 of a class for the NYLL claim. The court explained that Rule 23 class certification is different from certification of an opt-in collective action under the FLSA, and that this opinion addressed only the Rule 23 request.
The proposed class covered people employed by the defendants in tipped or non-tipped positions that were not exempt from overtime during the six years before the action began through the date of the decision. The plaintiffs also sought to appoint Troy Law and John Troy as class counsel.
Legal Standard
For a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), plaintiffs must establish numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. They must also show that common issues predominate over individual issues and that a class action is superior to other available methods. The plaintiffs bear the burden of proving each requirement by a preponderance of the evidence. A proposed class lawyer must also be qualified, experienced, capable, and able to represent the class fairly and adequately.
Court’s Analysis
Numerosity. The court held that the plaintiffs did not show that the proposed class was large enough to make joining all members impracticable. They provided no employment records, payroll records, declarations, or other evidence establishing even an approximate number of potential class members. The court found that a conclusory statement by John Troy that the class had at least 40 members, and might have 50 or more, was insufficient because he lacked personal knowledge and cited no supporting evidence.
Commonality and typicality. The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to establish commonality and typicality. The proposed class included employees of two restaurants with separate management and payroll systems. Shun Lee Palace was unionized, while Shun Lee West was not. At Shun Lee Palace, unionized waiters and bartenders were covered by a collective bargaining agreement, while delivery workers were not union members. The court found no evidence of centralized control, employee transfers between the restaurants, or a common unlawful policy across them. Because the groups were managed separately and worked under different employment arrangements, the court concluded that their claims could not be resolved through common answers in one class proceeding.
Adequacy of proposed class counsel. The court held that Troy Law and John Troy were not adequate to serve as class counsel. The court cited two sanctions in this case, delays in depositions, failure to take a single deposition during the litigation, waiver of the opportunity to depose defendants, failures involving requests for admissions and discovery, missed deadlines, and repeated failures to follow the court’s filing rules. The court also noted that two plaintiffs’ claims had been dismissed under Rules 37(d) and 41(b) for failure to prosecute after they were not made available for depositions. In addition, the plaintiffs offered three different proposed class definitions in different filings and submitted more affidavits than the court’s rules allowed.
The court stated that these problems prejudiced the plaintiffs and prevented development of the evidence needed for class certification. It also considered sanctions and concerns about Troy Law and John Troy in other cases, while noting that those other cases did not independently establish their unfitness. The court concluded that their conduct in this case and their other shortcomings showed that they could not provide the skilled and diligent representation required of class counsel.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 23 class certification. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 258. The opinion did not rule on the merits of whether the defendants violated the FLSA or NYLL, and it did not state a separate disposition for the motion to substitute party mentioned at the beginning of the opinion.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.