Abuladze v. Apple Commuter, Inc..
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-08684
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Abuladze v. Apple Commuter, Judge Woods adopted a recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the dismissal motion and denying leave to amend.
The plaintiffs and the defendants other than Apple and Shah were affected by the ruling on the motion to dismiss; the order also denied leave to amend.
What happened
Abuladze v. Apple Commuter Inc. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, along with contract and unjust-enrichment claims. A magistrate judge recommended partially granting and partially denying the hotel defendants’ motion to dismiss.
No party objected to the recommendation within the required period. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. The dismissal motion was granted in part and denied in part as to all defendants except Apple and Shah, and the request to amend the complaint was denied.
Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the order on February 7, 2024. The ruling left some claims and group-action allegations in place while dismissing other claims, as described in the recommendation.
The detailed version
- Abuladze v. Apple Commuter, Inc.. · No. 1:22-cv-08684
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 7, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), as well as breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims. The order concerns a motion to dismiss filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), which addresses insufficient service of process, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint adequately states a claim.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
On January 23, 2024, Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky issued a Report and Recommendation. The recommendation concluded that:
- the plaintiffs did not fail to serve a necessary and indispensable party; - the FLSA claims and some NYLL claims were time-barred; - the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the hotel defendants were their joint employers; - the moving hotel defendants were not exempt under the taxicab exception to the FLSA and NYLL; - the breach-of-contract claims should be dismissed; - the unjust-enrichment claims should be dismissed; - the collective-action and class-action allegations should not be dismissed; and - leave to amend should be denied.
District Court’s Review and Ruling
The parties did not submit objections within the fourteen-day period. Judge Woods therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The court accepted and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.
The court ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part as to all defendants except Apple and Shah. The court also denied leave to amend. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 62.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.