Cartagena v. Sixth Avenue West Associates LLC

Background

Gabriel Cartagena brought claims against Sixth Avenue West Associates LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. He alleged that Sixth Avenue failed to pay appropriate overtime wages and failed to comply with federal and state minimum-wage requirements. He also alleged violations of New York’s Wage Theft Protection Act, which requires employers to provide a wage notice when an employee is hired and a wage statement during each pay period.

Cartagena alleged that Sixth Avenue did not provide those notices or statements, but the complaint did not allege that he suffered an injury because of those violations. The opinion identifies Cartagena’s Wage Theft Protection Act claims as his third cause of action.

Motion and Legal Standard

Sixth Avenue moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that Cartagena lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution because he had not alleged an injury in fact connected to the missing wage notices or statements.

The court explained that standing requires a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury, a connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury. A statutory violation by itself does not necessarily establish a concrete injury. For an informational injury, the plaintiff must identify consequences that resulted from not receiving the required information.

Court’s Analysis

The court recognized that federal courts in the Second Circuit had reached different conclusions about whether a bare allegation of a Wage Theft Protection Act violation establishes standing. Some courts had found standing based on the alleged failure to provide notices or statements, while others required allegations connecting the missing information to a tangible injury or another legally recognized harm.

The court adopted the latter approach. It held that a plaintiff bringing a wage-notice or wage-statement claim must allege an injury stemming from the statutory violation. The court also refused to infer a concrete injury merely because Cartagena asserted other wage claims under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The court found that Cartagena’s complaint did not allege any concrete injury connected to the alleged Wage Theft Protection Act violations. His assertion in his opposition brief that he had suffered financial or informational harm could not cure the complaint because allegations made in a brief do not amend the complaint. The court also stated that the complaint did not clearly explain how Sixth Avenue violated the Act.

Disposition

The court granted Sixth Avenue’s motion. Cartagena’s third cause of action was dismissed without prejudice. The court allowed Cartagena to amend his complaint by October 11, 2023, to provide specific facts about how Sixth Avenue violated the Wage Theft Protection Act and what harm resulted. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Docket No. 13.