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
- The amended complaint adequately alleged that defendants engaged in interstate commerce and satisfied the FLSA's $500,000 annual gross-volume requirement.
- The amended complaint adequately alleged that the defendants and twenty-eight laundromats operated as a single integrated enterprise.
- The amended complaint plausibly alleged that Ramirez worked more than forty hours in particular workweeks and was not paid all required overtime wages.
- Ramirez adequately alleged concrete injuries flowing from the alleged wage-notice and wage-statement violations and therefore had Article III standing.
- 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
- Whether the amended complaint adequately alleged that defendants were engaged in interstate commerce and met the FLSA enterprise revenue threshold.
- Whether the amended complaint adequately alleged that the defendants constituted a single integrated enterprise and could be treated as joint employers under the FLSA.
- Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged unpaid FLSA overtime wages.
- Whether Ramirez alleged concrete injuries sufficient to establish Article III standing for claims concerning New York wage notices and wage statements.
- 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 PDFLoading document…