Neor v. Acacia Network, Inc.

Background

Giitou Neor and Tyrone Wallace sued Acacia Network, Inc., Acacia Network Housing Inc., Promesa Residential Health Care Facility, Inc., and John Doe Corporations 1–100. They brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law on behalf of themselves, a collective of Fair Labor Standards Act plaintiffs, and a class. They sought unpaid wages, including overtime, statutory penalties, additional damages, interest, and fees.

Neor alleged that she was scheduled to work five days per week from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with an unpaid one-hour lunch break, but was required to work through lunch and after her shift. Wallace alleged that he was scheduled to work five days per week from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but likewise worked through lunch and after his shift without proper compensation.

Plaintiffs also alleged that Acacia violated New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act by providing inaccurate wage statements and notices. They claimed the statements understated the hours they actually worked. The court had previously dismissed this claim for lack of standing but allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint to try to correct the problem. Plaintiffs then filed a Third Amended Complaint.

Motion to dismiss the Wage Theft Prevention Act claim

Acacia filed a partial motion to dismiss the New York Labor Law claim concerning wage notices and statements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Acacia argued that plaintiffs had standing to pursue claims for unpaid wages but not to seek statutory penalties for inaccurate wage statements.

Plaintiffs argued that the inaccurate statements harmed them by weakening their ability to challenge the adequacy of their pay and depriving them of useful documentary evidence. The court rejected that theory. It explained that Article III standing requires a concrete injury, not merely a technical violation of a statute. A weaker litigation position was not a recognized concrete harm because plaintiffs might still win the lawsuit and recover the same damages, meaning they might suffer no actual injury from the alleged loss of evidence. The court also found that plaintiffs had not shown an informational injury because they did not identify an interest in the information apart from using it to bring the lawsuit.

The court further stated that plaintiffs had abandoned their claim concerning wage notices because they did not address that claim in their opposition papers. The court therefore granted Acacia’s partial motion to dismiss the Wage Theft Prevention Act claim, including the claim concerning New York Labor Law § 195(1)(a) wage notices.

Motion to strike

Acacia also moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike paragraphs 29–31 and 38–39 of the Third Amended Complaint. A motion to strike asks the court to remove material from a pleading, and courts generally disfavor such motions unless there is a strong reason to do so.

Acacia argued that the challenged allegations improperly added claims that Neor and Wallace worked off the clock. Plaintiffs responded that the allegations had appeared in earlier amended complaints and that any changes were stylistic or provided greater clarity.

The court denied Acacia’s motion to strike paragraphs 29–31 concerning Neor. It found that the allegations describing Neor’s work during lunch and after 4:00 p.m., including her alleged weekly work schedule, were identical or substantially similar to allegations in the First and Second Amended Complaints and were not meaningfully new.

The court also denied Acacia’s motion to strike paragraphs 38–39 concerning Wallace. It found that the allegations that Wallace worked through lunch and after clocking out had appeared in the original complaint and had been repeated in later versions. The court concluded that the Third Amended Complaint did not exceed the permission granted to plaintiffs to amend.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Acacia’s partial motion to dismiss the Wage Theft Prevention Act claim and denied Acacia’s motion to strike paragraphs 29–31 and 38–39 of the Third Amended Complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.