Lopez v. Fluxpace Design & Build LLC

Background

Juan Lopez brought a putative class action against Fluxpace Design & Build LLC, Fluxpace Inc., and Victor Sierra. He asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), including claims for unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, wage notices and statements, and spread-of-hours pay.

Lopez alleged that he worked for Defendants from approximately August 2021 through July 2022 as a non-managerial construction worker, foreman, and manual laborer. He alleged that he worked about 60 to 66 hours per week, received fixed daily payments, was not paid an overtime premium, and was not paid for his final two weeks of work. He also alleged that Defendants had the power to hire and fire employees and to determine their wages, working conditions, and assignments. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

The Court’s Analysis

The court declined to consider unsupported legal conclusions in Victor Sierra’s declaration, along with an untranslated screenshot and an uncertified translation submitted with the motion. The court also determined that those materials did not create a material factual issue concerning Lopez’s standing at that stage of the case.

The court rejected Defendants’ standing argument. Lopez alleged that Defendants owned and operated the worksite, that Sierra was an owner, officer, or agent of the corporate defendants, and that Sierra had authority over hiring, schedules, and pay. Lopez also alleged concrete harms, including insufficient overtime and minimum-wage pay. The court held that these allegations met the low threshold for constitutional standing.

The court separately addressed whether Lopez had stated an FLSA claim. Under the economic-reality test, the court considers factors such as the alleged employer’s power to hire and fire, control over schedules and working conditions, authority over pay, and maintenance of employment records. The court explained that the same employer test applies to the NYLL claims. Although Lopez’s allegations were sufficient for standing, the court found them insufficient to state a claim because they merely recited the relevant factors and asserted that Defendants satisfied them without providing specific examples of Defendants exercising the alleged authority. The court concluded that these were conclusory allegations under both the formal-employer and functional-control analyses.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. It granted Lopez leave to amend his complaint within 21 days after entry of the order. The opinion does not state that any amended complaint was later filed or describe any later proceedings.