Battino v. Cornelia Fifth Ave., LLC
Decision Date | 24 May 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 09 Civ. 4113(JPO)(MHD).,09 Civ. 4113(JPO)(MHD). |
Citation | 861 F.Supp.2d 392 |
Parties | Sarah Ann BATTINO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and as class representatives, Plaintiffs, v. CORNELIA FIFTH AVENUE, LLC; Spa Chakra Fifth Avenue, LLC; Cornelia Essentials, LLC, Cornelia Zicu International 401(K) Plan; Richard Aidekman; Ellen Sackoff; and Michael Canizales, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Salvatore G. Gangemi, Gangemi Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan Adam Bernstein, Levy Davis & Maher, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Richard Knight Muser, Diane Marie Pietraszewski, Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP, Peter T. Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
This is a collective action for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (“FLSA”) and a class action for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”), and New York state labor laws.
Presently before the Court is a motion by one of the defendants, Michael Canizales, for partial summary judgment (a) dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint as against Canizales; and (b) dismissing the cross-claims against Canizales by co-defendants Cornelia Fifth Avenue, LLC (“Cornelia Fifth”), Cornelia Zicu International, LLC (“Zicu”), Cornelia International 401(K) Plan (“Cornelia 401(K)”), Richard Aidekman and Ellen Sackoff (collectively, the “Cornelia Defendants”).
For the reasons that follow, Canizales' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts are drawn from the parties' Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statements and other submissions in connection with the instant motion, and are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
Until February 6, 2009, Defendant Cornelia Fifth owned and operated the Cornelia Day Resort at One East 52nd Street, New York, New York. Defendant Richard Aidekman was the owner of Samson Spas, LLC, which owned defendant Zicu, which, in turn, was the managing member of Cornelia Fifth.1
Defendant Michael Canizales was a part owner and member of defendant Spa Chakra Fifth Avenue, LLC (“SCFAL”).
During 2009, Aidekman entered into negotiations with Canizales to sell certain assets of Cornelia Fifth to SCFAL. On February 6, 2009, SCFAL entered into an asset purchase agreement with Cornelia Fifth (with Richard Aidekman and Defendant Ellen Sackoff as principals).
Plaintiffs are a class of individuals who were employees of Cornelia Fifth, and at least some of whom were also hired by SCFAL. They include, inter alia, hairstylists, nail technicians, massage therapists, make-up artists, and department managers. (Third Amended Class Action Complaint, Dkt. No. 109 (“Comp.”), ¶¶ 7–68.) Plaintiffs are allegedly owed wages incurred during the weeks leading up to the closing of the APA that were not paid by Cornelia Fifth or SCFAL.
The APA contained several provisions relevant to this motion.
APA § 2.1 identified particular assets that were being purchased by SCFAL, including, inter alia, inventory, equipment, certain contracts related to the business, accounts receivable, and goodwill of the business as a going concern. APA § 2.2 sets forth certain assets that were expressly not being sold, including, inter alia, shares of the capital stock of the seller, corporate policies of the seller, all marks, and other documents having to do with the corporate organization of Cornelia Fifth, including seals, charter documents, minute books, stock books, tax returns, and books of account.
APA § 2.3 sets forth particular liabilities being transferred, and § 2.4 sets forth excluded liabilities.2 The latter section provides that “[n]either the Buyer nor any of its Affiliates shall assume any Liabilities of the Seller ... other than solely those specifically set forth in Section 2.3,” and expressly excludes “all other Liabilities, regardless of when made or asserted, which arise out of or are based upon any events occurring or actions taken or omitted to be taken by the Seller, or otherwise arising out of or incurred in connection with the conduct of the Business, on or before the Closing Date.” (APA § 2.4.)
Article IV of the APA contains the seller's representations and warranties, including that Cornelia Fifth “has conducted, and is conducting, the Business in material compliance with all applicable laws ...”; that “[n]o event has occurred and that no circumstances exist that ... would result in a violation of, conflict with or failure on the part of the Seller to conduct the business in compliance with, any applicable Law”; and that “[t]he Seller has not received notice regarding any violation of, conflict with, or failure to conduct the Business in compliance with any applicable Law.” (APA § 4.8.) Cornelia Fifth also specifically warranted that “[t]here are, and have been, no violations of any other Law respecting the hiring, hours, wages, occupational safety and health, employment, promotion, termination or benefits of any Business Employee or other Person in connection with the Business.” (APA § 4.18.)
Under Article VI of the APA, containing the parties' covenants, Cornelia Fifth covenanted that “[a]ny and all Liabilities relating to or arising out of the employment, or cessation of employment, of any Business Employee ... on or prior to the close of business on the Closing Date .... shall be the sole responsibility of Seller including wages and other renumeration due through the close of business on the Closing Date....” (APA § 6.4(b).) Section 6.6 provides that “[f]rom and after the Closing, Seller shall pay and discharge on a timely basis all of the Excluded Liabilities.” (APA § 6.6(a).)
The APA also contained indemnification provisions for each side. The seller ( i.e., Cornelia Fifth) and the principals ( i.e., Aidekman and Sackoff) agreed to indemnify “the Buyer [ i.e., SCFAL] and its Affiliates and their respective stockholders, members, managers, officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns” for various losses arising in connection with any breach of the APA (including the representations, warranties and covenants) by the seller or its principals. (APA § 7.2(a).) The buyer ( i.e., SCFAL) agreed to indemnify “the Seller and its Affiliates and their respective stockholders, members, managers, officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns” against, inter alia, breaches of the APA or failure to perform the assumed liabilities by SCFAL. (APA § 7.3.)
After the closing, SCFAL opened the Spa Chakra Fifth Avenue Spa at the former location of the Cornelia Day Resort. Some, but not all, of the Cornelia Fifth employees were hired by SCFAL. SCFAL also hired additional new employees who had not worked for Cornelia Fifth. SCFAL did not sell the Cornelia-branded beauty products that had previously been sold at that location, but the business was operated as a beauty spa. Customers calling the new spa were informed of the change in the business when they called to make appointments. SCFAL created a new website for the spa.
Canizales states in an affidavit that (Canizales Aff. ¶ 27.)
What happened next is the subject of sharp dispute among the defendants. There is no dispute that soon after the closing, SCFAL ran into financial difficulty and the business failed less than a year after the closing. Canizales claims that the failure was a result of various undisclosed liabilities and obligations of the Cornelia Defendants, and the Cornelia Defendants' subsequent refusal to indemnify SCFAL and pay the various liabilities they had agreed to pay in the APA. For their part, the Cornelia Defendants contend that the failure of the business was due to Mr. Canizales' violations of the APA. In particular, they contend that he diverted to his other businesses funds that they had transferred to him pursuant to the APA. ( See generally Affidavit of Richard Aidekman (Dkt. No. 150).)
Suffice it to say that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the precise causes and effects of all of these events, but these issues are not material to the instant motion, so it is unnecessary for the Court to resolve these disputes. It is, however, undisputed that the business did fail, and that on November 30, 2009, three of SCFAL's creditors filed an involuntary petition against SCFAL under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code; that Spa Chakra, Inc. later filed a Chapter 11 petition; and that both cases were later consolidated into one Chapter 11 case. After certain reorganization efforts ultimatelyfailed, the Spa Chakra branded spa at One East 52nd Street closed. It is also undisputed that Richard Aidekman and Ellen Sackoff later filed for bankruptcy protection, but that Cornelia Fifth and Zicu still exist as business entities.
When Cornelia Fifth sold the assets of the business to SCFAL, it had allegedly not yet paid its employees' wages for January 2009 and February 2009 through the closing date. Canizales states that “[a]t or about the time of the February 6, 2009 closing of the APA, Aidekman told [him] that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nardoni v. City of N.Y.
...on the evidence presented." Id. at 553 (quoting Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ); see also Battino v. Cornelia Fifth Ave. , LLC, 861 F.Supp.2d 392, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("To avoid summary judgment, all that is required of the non-moving party is a showing of sufficient evidence s......
-
Gallo v. Wonderly Co.
...Health, 2011 WL 2432925, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. June 16, 2011) (citing Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d at 511); Battino v. Cornelia Fifth Ave., LLC, 861 F. Supp. 2d 392, 404 (citing the nine factors enumerated in E.E.O.C. v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc., 503 F.2d 1086, 1094 (6th Cir......
-
Lewis v. Blackman Plumbing Supply L. L.C.
...that Blackman is a successor-in-interest to Ridgewood. (See Defs.' Mem. 16; Pl.'s Mem. 21–25.) See also Battino v. Cornelia Fifth Ave., L.L.C., 861 F.Supp.2d 392, 400 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (analyzing whether successor liability applied in the context of an FLSA claim). “Under both New York law and......
-
Cuervo v. Airport Servs., Inc.
...law successor liability test; or the applicable state law's successor liability common law test. See Battino v. Cornelia Fifth Ave., LLC, 861 F.Supp.2d 392, 403–04 (S.D.N.Y.2012); Medina v. Unlimited Sys., LLC, 760 F.Supp.2d 263, 266 (D.Conn.2010). This Court does not have to decide that is......