Urena v. Sonder USA Inc.

Background

Christian Urena brought a proposed class action against Sonder USA Inc. under the New York Labor Law. Urena alleged that Sonder paid him and other proposed class members every two weeks rather than weekly, in violation of New York Labor Law § 191. He also alleged that Sonder failed to provide the wage notice required by New York Labor Law § 195. For both claims, he sought damages under § 198. The opinion states that Urena worked as a maintenance engineer at Sonder’s 2 Washington Street location in New York City and was still employed by Sonder when he filed the complaint.

Sonder moved to dismiss both claims. It argued that the first claim should be dismissed because § 198 does not provide a private right of action to seek liquidated damages for late payments under § 191. It argued that the second claim should be dismissed for lack of standing because Urena had not identified an injury resulting from the alleged failure to provide a wage notice.

Count Two: Wage Notice

The court explained that standing requires a plaintiff to show an actual or imminent injury that is concrete and particularized, caused by the challenged conduct, and capable of being remedied by a favorable decision. The court did not decide whether Urena had standing, however, because Urena expressly stated in his opposition that he did not oppose dismissal of Count Two. Treating the claim as abandoned, the court dismissed Count Two with prejudice.

Count One: Timely Payment of Wages

The court did not rule on Sonder’s motion to dismiss Count One. The opinion describes conflicting decisions from New York’s intermediate appellate courts about whether § 198 permits a private action for liquidated damages based on violations of § 191’s timely-payment requirement. One decision held that such an action is available, while another held that it is not. The New York Court of Appeals had not yet resolved the issue, although a request for permission to appeal the conflicting decision was pending.

Because the state-law question might soon receive guidance from the New York Court of Appeals, the court ordered the parties to show cause within seven days why it should not stay its ruling on Sonder’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion concerning Count One. Thus, Count One was not dismissed or otherwise resolved in this decision and order.

Disposition

The court granted Sonder’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the Second Cause of Action, which the opinion explains was dismissed with prejudice. The court ordered the parties to show cause why it should not stay its ruling on Sonder’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the First Cause of Action pending possible review by the New York Court of Appeals. Judge Victor Marrero issued the decision.