De Jesus Serrano v. Lexington Fresh Farm Inc.

Background

Luis de Jesus Serrano brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against Lexington Farm Fresh Inc., doing business as Smiley’s Deli, and Amir Kareem, Nayeem Ghesani, and Nasir Ghesani. The complaint alleged that Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a delicatessen in New York, New York, where Serrano worked as a general worker, delivery worker, and florist from approximately October 6, 2017, through July 15, 2022.

Serrano asserted claims for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and related liquidated damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Motion to Dismiss

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim based on the allegations ordinarily considered at the pleading stage. Defendants relied on what they described as a Separation Agreement and Release. They contended that Serrano signed the agreement after leaving his employment, received $340 in outstanding wages and an additional $260 premium, and released the types of claims asserted in the complaint.

Defendants asked the court to consider the agreement and declarations from two LFFI employees who supported its authenticity. Serrano disputed those submissions. He declared that Defendants never presented him with a separation agreement or release in English or Spanish, that he had never seen or signed the document, and that he received only a $340 wage payment after his last day of employment.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that, when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it generally limits its review to the complaint, documents attached to or incorporated into the complaint, and matters suitable for judicial notice. A limited exception may apply to a document not incorporated into the complaint when the complaint relies heavily on that document’s terms and effect.

The court declined to take judicial notice of the alleged Separation Agreement and the related declarations. First, the complaint did not rely on the agreement; instead, the complaint was based on the alleged absence of a general release resolving Serrano’s claims. Second, even if the agreement were considered integral to the complaint, the record did not show clearly that there was no dispute about its authenticity or accuracy. The parties’ conflicting accounts raised factual issues about the document’s evidentiary basis, authenticity, and the circumstances of the alleged release. The court stated that those issues required discovery and were not appropriate for resolution at the pleading stage.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The ruling did not decide whether the Separation Agreement was authentic, whether Serrano signed it, or whether it released his wage claims. Defendants were ordered to file an answer within 21 days, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at ECF Number 25.