Mota v. Abalon Exterminating Company, Inc.

Background

Kendall Mota, Travis Subaran, Nathaniel Emilia, Hector Briganti, and Michael Miranda sued Abalon Exterminating Company, Inc., Irwin Noval, and Dorothy Gomez Frost. The plaintiffs alleged that they were paid late, received bounced checks, were not paid all wages owed, and did not receive the legally required overtime or prevailing wages for work on public projects. They asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), as well as state-law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. They argued that some FLSA claims were untimely, that Mota and Miranda had not adequately pleaded overtime violations, and that the prevailing-wage claims could not cover work connected to the New York Public Library.

Timeliness of the FLSA Claims

The FLSA generally has a two-year limitations period, extended to three years when the violation was willful. The court held that Emilia and Briganti plausibly alleged willful violations. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants divided hours into separate paychecks so that the checks would not show the employees’ accurate hours and would avoid overtime payments. The court therefore denied the motion insofar as the defendants sought to dismiss Emilia’s and Briganti’s FLSA claims as untimely.

Subaran allegedly last worked for Abalon on September 1, 2018, more than four years before the case was filed. The court granted the motion with respect to Subaran’s FLSA claims because they were untimely even under the three-year period. The court denied the motion with respect to Subaran’s NYLL claims. Those claims had a six-year limitations period and arose from the same compensation practices as the federal claims, so the court found that it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

FLSA Overtime Claims

To plead an FLSA overtime claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a particular workweek and was not properly paid for the extra time. Mota alleged that he generally worked about 40 to 50 hours per week, usually from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. five days a week, with occasional earlier starts or later finishes. Miranda similarly alleged that he generally worked about 40 to 50 hours per week, usually six days a week, sometimes starting earlier or staying later.

The court found these allegations too vague because they did not identify any particular workweek in which either plaintiff worked more than 40 hours and was denied overtime. The court granted the motion with respect to Mota’s and Miranda’s FLSA overtime claims, dismissing those claims for failure to state a claim.

Prevailing-Wage and Other State-Law Claims

New York law requires prevailing wages on covered public-works contracts. The plaintiffs alleged that Abalon worked on public-works projects, that the contracts required prevailing wages, and that the plaintiffs worked on those projects without receiving the required rates. The court found those allegations sufficient to support a breach-of-contract claim based on the plaintiffs’ alleged status as intended third-party beneficiaries of the contracts. The related conversion and unjust-enrichment claims were treated as alternative theories based on the same prevailing-wage allegations.

The defendants challenged the claims only as they related to work performed for the New York Public Library, arguing that the library was a nonprofit organization rather than a government agency. The court held that it was premature to define the scope of the claims because the complaint referred more broadly to various New York City public libraries and did not have to list every public contract at the pleading stage. The court therefore denied the motion with respect to the prevailing-wage-related state-law claims.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. The motion was denied as to the timeliness challenge to Emilia’s and Briganti’s FLSA claims, denied as to Subaran’s NYLL claims, and denied as to the prevailing-wage-related state-law claims. It was granted as to Subaran’s FLSA claims and Mota’s and Miranda’s FLSA overtime claims. The court requested that the Clerk close the motion.