Recio v. D'Almonte Enterprises Parking Garage, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs brought a proposed collective and class action alleging wage-and-hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. They alleged, among other things, payment below minimum wage, unpaid off-the-clock work, and unlawful wage deductions involving work as parking attendants.

The plaintiffs moved to file a second amended complaint. The proposed amendment would add three claims for Isidro Recio alone against Rafael Almonte, Ariel Reyes, and Miguel Velazquez under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York City Human Rights Law. The claims alleged racial harassment, discrimination, and a hostile work environment based on allegations that the individual defendants made comments about Black and Puerto Rican customers and instructed Recio not to let certain customers into the garages.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the stricter standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) applied, even though the scheduling order did not expressly set a deadline for amended pleadings. The court found that the parties’ failure to include such a deadline, after already filing one amended complaint, indicated that they and the court understood that further amendments were not contemplated. Under Rule 16(b), the plaintiffs needed to show good cause, which primarily required demonstrating diligence.

The court found no good cause. Recio’s employment ended in approximately March 2020, and the alleged events occurred before the original complaint was filed in July 2022. The original complaint itself included allegations that Rafael Almonte had made comments about not renting to Black or Puerto Rican people and about a Black customer entering the garage. The court therefore concluded that both Recio and his counsel were aware of the core facts underlying the proposed discrimination claims before discovery. Counsel’s later understanding that those facts supported additional legal claims did not establish the required diligence.

The court also concluded that the motion failed under Rule 15(a), which generally allows amendments when justice requires. The court found an unexplained delay of more than a year and potential prejudice to the defendants. The proposed claims involved different facts and legal theories from the wage-and-hour claims, were brought by only Recio rather than the group of plaintiffs, and could require additional discovery and create complexity or confusion at trial.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. It did not decide whether Recio’s proposed discrimination or hostile-work-environment claims were legally valid, and it did not rely on defendants’ affidavits disputing the factual allegations. The ruling addressed only whether the complaint could be amended at that stage of the litigation.

Procedural Note

The supplied case information identifies the judge as Sidney Stein, but the opinion is signed by Gary Stein and identifies him as the United States Magistrate Judge. This summary follows the judge named and signing the opinion.