Cid Hurtado v. Hudson Fulton Corp.

Background

Plaintiffs Jhon Jairo Cid Hurtado, Victor Peguero, and Alberto De La Rosa Volquez Romel brought a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act. They sought unpaid wages and related relief, alleging that they regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving proper overtime pay and that defendants failed to provide accurate wage statements and notices.

The motion asked for permission to file a first amended complaint adding Inwood Farms, LLC as a defendant. The proposed complaint alleged that Inwood, owned by Thomas Bosco, purchased Hudson Fulton Corp.’s assets in March 2021 and continued operating the same type of business, at the same bar and grill, with much of the same personnel, supervisors, and equipment. It also alleged that Inwood continued Hudson’s business and was liable under a successor-liability theory.

Procedural History

The case-management plan set June 16, 2022, as the deadline to amend the pleadings. Plaintiffs served discovery requests on August 1, 2022. Defendant Thomas Bosco produced the asset purchase agreement on October 31, 2022, and the parties took depositions in November and December 2022. Plaintiffs filed their motion to amend on January 24, 2023, after discovery was completed.

Because the motion was filed after the scheduling deadline, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires “good cause” to modify a scheduling order. The court also considered the amendment standards under Rule 15, which generally favors allowing amendments unless there is a substantial reason to deny them, such as undue delay, prejudice, bad faith, or futility.

Arguments and Analysis

Bosco argued that the amendment would be futile because plaintiffs had not established that Inwood was a continuation of Hudson. Plaintiffs argued that Inwood had notice of the action and should not be able to avoid possible successor liability.

The court found good cause because plaintiffs had not shown that they should have known before October 31, 2022, that Inwood had acquired Hudson’s assets or had a connection to the defendants. The court also found that the proposed allegations, although sparse, were sufficient under the liberal pleading standard to state a potentially valid successor-liability theory. The court noted that factual disputes—including whether Bosco employed or supervised the plaintiffs and whether the asset purchase agreement prevented Inwood from being liable—were not appropriate to resolve on a motion to amend. Those issues could be addressed later through summary judgment or trial.

The court found no undue delay, bad faith, or undue prejudice to Bosco or Inwood. It also concluded that the defendants had not demonstrated that the proposed amendment was futile.

Ruling

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend. It ordered plaintiffs to file the first amended complaint by April 18, 2023, and to serve the summons and amended complaint on each defendant by April 25, 2023, with proof of service filed on the docket. The ruling allowed Inwood Farms to be added as a defendant; it did not decide whether Inwood, Hudson, Bosco, or any other defendant was liable for the alleged wage violations.