Fisher v. Hudson Hall LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-09737
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Fisher v. Hudson Hall, Judge Vyskocil granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing Fisher’s FLSA and NYLL claims.
Joel Fisher’s FLSA overtime claim was dismissed as time-barred, and his NYLL claims were dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, and Fisher was allowed to amend his complaint by September 22, 2023.
What happened
In Fisher v. Hudson Hall LLC, Joel Fisher alleged that Hudson Hall LLC and Think Food Group, LLC failed to pay him overtime and violated New York wage-notice and wage-statement requirements. Fisher worked as a dishwasher and porter at Mercado Little Spain from January 2018 to March 2020 and filed the lawsuit in November 2022.
The court ruled that Fisher’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim was filed too late under the applicable two-year deadline. The court found that he had not plausibly alleged that the employers willfully violated the law, which could have allowed a three-year deadline. The court declined to consider the merits of Fisher’s New York Labor Law claims because the federal claim was dismissed.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the federal overtime claim, dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice to renewal in state court, and granted Fisher leave to amend his complaint by September 22, 2023.
The detailed version
- Fisher v. Hudson Hall LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09737
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 21, 2023
Background
Joel Fisher sued Hudson Hall LLC, doing business as Mercado Little Spain, and Think Food Group, LLC. He asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), including claims for unpaid overtime and allegedly inadequate wage notices and wage statements. Fisher alleged that he was instructed to work after clocking out and that the defendants edited time sheets to reduce compensable time. He filed the lawsuit as a putative class and collective action.
The defendants moved to dismiss the FLSA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They moved to dismiss the NYLL wage-notice and wage-statement claims under Rule 12(b)(1), which addresses the federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
FLSA Claim
The court held that Fisher’s FLSA overtime claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. FLSA claims may receive a three-year limitations period when the employer’s violation was willful—meaning the employer knew, or recklessly disregarded, that its conduct was unlawful. The court found that Fisher did not plausibly allege willfulness. His allegations that the defendants had a common policy of requiring off-the-clock work and a system for editing time sheets were too vague and lacked sufficient factual detail. The allegation that managers instructed him to continue working after clocking out also did not show that the defendants acted knowingly or recklessly. Count One was dismissed.
NYLL Claims
Because the federal claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in the NYLL claims. The court did not consider the merits of those claims. Count Two was dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court granted Fisher leave to amend his complaint, explaining that leave to amend is generally appropriate when dismissal rests on deficient pleading. Any amended complaint had to be filed by September 22, 2023. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the motion to dismiss and directed the clerk to terminate the defendants’ motion from the docket.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.