Leslie Ramirez v. Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc., et al.

Ramirez · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · December 2, 2025 · No. 24-CV-01786 (MMG)

Summary

The Southern District of New York denied defendants’ motions to dismiss Leslie Ramirez’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York labor laws, and 27 U.S.C. § 7434. The court held that Ramirez adequately alleged interstate commerce, a single integrated enterprise, unpaid overtime, standing for wage-notice and wage-statement claims, and a willfully fraudulent information return. The opinion addresses motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Holdings

  1. The amended complaint adequately alleged that defendants engaged in interstate commerce and satisfied the FLSA's $500,000 annual gross-volume requirement.
  2. The amended complaint adequately alleged that the defendants and twenty-eight laundromats operated as a single integrated enterprise.
  3. The amended complaint plausibly alleged that Ramirez worked more than forty hours in particular workweeks and was not paid all required overtime wages.
  4. Ramirez adequately alleged concrete injuries flowing from the alleged wage-notice and wage-statement violations and therefore had Article III standing.
  5. The amended complaint stated a claim based on the allegation that defendants willfully filed a Form 1099 that omitted cash compensation paid to Ramirez.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the amended complaint adequately alleged that defendants were engaged in interstate commerce and met the FLSA enterprise revenue threshold.
  2. Whether the amended complaint adequately alleged that the defendants constituted a single integrated enterprise and could be treated as joint employers under the FLSA.
  3. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged unpaid FLSA overtime wages.
  4. Whether Ramirez alleged concrete injuries sufficient to establish Article III standing for claims concerning New York wage notices and wage statements.
  5. Whether the amended complaint stated a claim under 27 U.S.C. § 7434, as cited in the opinion, based on an allegedly fraudulent Form 1099 that omitted cash payments.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (29)

  • Operadora Kau-Kan v. Prodigy Network, LLC, 20-CV-02770 (ALC), 2021 WL 4482212, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021)(discussed)
  • Kant v. Columbia Univ., No. 08-CV-07476 (PGG), 2010 WL 807442, at *7-*8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2010)(discussed)
  • Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 498, 501, 517-18 (1975)(followed)
  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)(followed)
  • Connecticut Parents Union v. Russell-Tucker, 8 F.4th 167, 172 (2d Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Koch v. Christie's Int'l PLC, 699 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • A.I. Trade Fin., Inc. v. Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76, 79-80 (2d Cir. 1993)(followed)
  • Whiteside v. Hover-Davis, Inc., 995 F.3d 315, 321 (2d Cir. 2021)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 29.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…