723 F.3d 192 (2nd Cir. 2013), 11-0734, Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc.
|Docket Nº:||11-0734, 11-0710, 11-0713, 11-0728.|
|Citation:||723 F.3d 192|
|Opinion Judge:||POGUE, Judge:|
|Party Name:||Masahiro NAKAHATA, on behalf of herself and all other employees similarly situated, Diana Gardocki, on behalf of herself and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., Herbert Pardes, New York and Presbyterian Hospital, Wayne Osten, Defendants-Appellees, Diane Lee Sussman, Stevie|
|Attorney:||Michael J. Lingle (Guy A. Talia, J. Nelson Thomas, on the brief), Thomas & Solomon LLP, Rochester, NY, for Appellants. James S. Frank (Kenneth W. DiGia, Kenneth J. Kelly, on the brief), Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York, NY, (Terence K. McLaughlin, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY,...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: LOHIER, Circuit Judge, POGUE, Judge.|
|Case Date:||July 11, 2013|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Argued: Nov. 9, 2012.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
This is an appeal from an order by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing the complaint in each of four cases: Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 2661; Yarus v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., No. 10 Civ. 2662; Megginson v. Westchester Medical Center, No. 10 Civ. 2683; and Alamu v. The Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 3247. Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 2011 WL 321186 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2011) (" Nakahata I " ). Plaintiffs— current and former healthcare employees— allege that the Defendants— healthcare systems, hospitals, corporate heads, and affiliated entities— violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (" FLSA" ), New York Labor Law (" NYLL" ), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (" RICO" ), and New York common law by failing to compensate Plaintiffs for work performed during meal breaks, before and after scheduled shifts, and during required training sessions. The District Court dismissed the four complaints in their entirety for failing to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
We affirm in part the District Court's decision and remand in part. We affirm the dismissal, with prejudice, of the FLSA gap-time, RICO, and certain common law claims. We also affirm the dismissal of the FLSA and NYLL overtime claims, but we remand these claims with leave to replead. We reserve judgment on the dismissal of the NYLL gap-time claims and remand for reconsideration. Finally, we vacate the dismissal of certain common law claims and remand with leave to replead.
The four cases before us on appeal are but a few among many such actions brought by a single law firm, Thomas &
Solomon LLP, and premised on a stock set of allegations concerning underpayment in the healthcare industry. This is the second decision of this Court addressing these allegations, following the recent opinion in Lundy v. Catholic Health System of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir.2013). Several related cases remain pending before this Court.1
The parties are healthcare workers, on behalf of a putative class, and their alleged employers. The named Plaintiffs, identified only as " employees" or " employees of the defendants," are Masahiro Nakahata and Diana Gardocki, Nakahata 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 62; Patricia Megginson, Megginson Am. Compl. ¶ 61; Olusola Alamu and Jacqueline Cooper-Davis, Alamu Am. Compl. ¶ 64; and Jonathan Yarus and Mohamed Ali, Yarus Am. Compl. ¶ 52. Plaintiffs filed their suits as putative collective and class actions on behalf of " those employees of defendants who were suffered or permitted to work by defendants and not paid their regular or statutorily required rate of pay for all hours worked." Alamu Am. Compl. ¶ 65; Megginson Am. Compl. ¶ 62; Nakahata 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 63; Yarus Am. Compl. ¶ 53. The Defendants named in the complaints include corporate healthcare systems, individual hospitals in those systems, persons in corporate leadership roles, and affiliated healthcare facilities.2
Plaintiffs allege that it is Defendants' policy not to pay employees for all hours worked, including some overtime hours. In particular, Plaintiffs allege: (1) Defendants have a policy of automatically deducting time for meal breaks from employees' paychecks despite consistently requiring employees to work during meal breaks; (2) employees engage in work activities both before and after their shift without compensation; and (3) Defendants
require employees to attend training sessions for which they are not compensated. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid compensation pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL,3 and New York common law. Plaintiffs further allege that their paychecks were misleading and part of a fraudulent scheme to hide the underpayment in violation of RICO and New York common law.
Defendants moved the District Court to dismiss the complaint in each case for failure to state a claim. The District Court, observing that all four complaints " contain[ed] strikingly similar allegations and deficiencies," Nakahata I, 2011 WL 321186 at *1, issued a single opinion dismissing each complaint in its entirety and terminating all four cases. Id. at *7. The District Court permitted Plaintiffs to file new actions repleading the FLSA and NYLL claims, but it did not permit refiling of the RICO and common law claims. Id. at *6-7. Plaintiffs both appealed the District Court's decision and filed new actions alleging claims pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL.
JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW
The District Court had original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' FLSA and RICO claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2006). See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (2006) (creating a civil right of action for violation of the FLSA); 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (2006) (creating a civil right of action for violation of RICO). The District Court had supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL and common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir.2009). When reviewing the sufficiency of the complaint, we take all factual allegations as true and draw...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP