Kaplan v. Wings of Hope Residence, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2:18-cv-2972 (ADS) (AKT) |
| Parties | CHARLES KAPLAN, Plaintiff, v. WINGS OF HOPE RESIDENCE, INC., ALAN SKAWINSKI, BOB SKAWINSKI and SEAN JEREMY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
Yale Pollack, Esq.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
66 Split Rock Road
Syosset, NY 11791
Brendan Chao, Esq.
50 Merrick Road
Rockville Centre, NY 11570
I. BACKGROUND
Charles Kaplan (the "Plaintiff") brought a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and negligence action against Wings of Hope Residence, Inc. ("Wings of Hope"), Alan Skawinski ("Alan"), Bob Skawinski ("Bob"), and Sean Jeremy ("Sean") (together, the "Defendants") after his eviction from a Wings of Hope residence in Huntington Station, New York (the "House"). ECF 1. All of the individual parties reside in New York, and Wings of Hope is a New York corporation. Id. at 3. He alleged that the Defendants were liable for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, in violation of the FLSA, and failure to pay minimum wages; overtime wages; spread of hours; and failure to supply notices under the NYLL. Id. at 10-14. As to negligence, he claimed that the Defendants permitted the House to become unsafe and hazardous to its occupants. Id. at 14-15.
The Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FED. R. CIV. P.") 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. ECF 8. In December 2018, the Court granted that motion in part, dismissing without prejudice the FLSA claim and the NYLL overtime claim, ruling that the Plaintiff failed to plead that FLSA liability existed as to Bob and Sean, and granting the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. ECF 27.
Shortly after the Court issued its order, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. ECF 29. The Plaintiff alleged that Wings of Hope is a company that assists individuals in transitioning from treatment facilities to the real world by providing safe and clean housing for them. Id. at 3. He alleged that in 2012, he was homeless and was placed in the House. Id. at 5.
The Plaintiff also alleged that upon arriving at the House, he learned that it was unsafe for human habitation, with "garbage strewn around the house, feces in the bathroom, mold throughout the House and other dangerous conditions that affected the health and safety of its residents." Id. at 6. This conflicted with the Wings of Hope website, which championed the House as a clean and safe living environment. Id. Despite these conditions, the Plaintiff "had no choice" but to live at the House. Id.
The Plaintiff further claimed that in August 2014, Bob approached the Plaintiff and told him that he was being made the new House Manager. Id. The Plaintiff did not identify Bob'srole at Wings of Hope, other than to say he was his "supervisor." Id. at 12. The Plaintiff took the position after being told that he could either take the position or move out. Id. He alleged that the House Manager job required him to be available at the House seven days a week, and that it included, inter alia, the following responsibilities, for which he received no compensation: (a) collecting rent from the other residents; (b) filling out leases when a new resident arrived at the House; (c) evicting residents; (d) settling disputes with neighbors and handling neighbor complaints; (e) ensuring the House's cleanliness; (f) purchasing supplies for the House; (g) taking care of medical emergencies at the House; and (h) maintaining Material Safety Data Sheets ("MSDS") for products kept in the House, because he believed it was necessary under the Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA"). Id. at 6-13. The Plaintiff included in the complaint a list of the products purchased for the MSDS sheets and the states from which they originated. Id.
The Plaintiff reported to Bob, and he alleged that whenever he approached Bob with a House problem, Bob would tell the Plaintiff to take care of it on his own. Id. at 12. The Plaintiff alleged that in August 2015, Alan, an owner and officer of Wings of Hope, fired Bob and replaced him with Sean, who would frequently delegate responsibilities to the Plaintiff; again, the Plaintiff did not elaborate on Sean's title or responsibilities at Wings of Hope. Id. at 13-16. In addition, the Plaintiff alleged that he repeatedly complained to Alan and Bob about the House's unsafe conditions, but that they did not respond to those complaints. Id. at 16-17. In October 2017, he was evicted from the House, and he has provided no reasoning as to why he was evicted. Id. at 17.
In the amended complaint, the Plaintiff raised FLSA and NYLL claims for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. He also raised NYLL claims for failure to pay spread of hours; notice violations and wage statement violations; and, a claim for negligence. Id. at 17-21.
Presently before Court is the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. ECF 33.
II. DISCUSSION
In their Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Defendants ask that the Court consider three exhibits in addition to the amended complaint. ECF 33-2 at 6. Thus, the discussion section of this opinion first provides the legal standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Next, it gives the standard for considering materials outside of the complaint, and rules on the Defendants' request. Then the opinion addresses the merits of the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion, starting with the FLSA claims and then proceeding to the NYLL and negligence claims. For the reasons that follow, the Court rules that it may consider materials submitted by the Defendants; it grants the motion to dismiss the FLSA claims; it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL and negligence claims; and it dismisses the case.
Under FED. R. CIV. P. 8, a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 12(b)(6) provides that dismissal is appropriate if the complaint "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." "To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must plead 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,' Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007), and 'allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)." Otis-Wisher v. Medtronic, Inc., 616 F. App'x 433, 434 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order).
Although the Court must accept all allegations in the complaint as true, this tenet is "inapplicable to legal conclusions," Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Thus, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citation omitted). Ultimately, the Court's plausibility determination is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679, 1950.
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See, e.g., Trs. of Upstate N.Y. Eng'rs Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Mgmt., 843 F.3d 561, 566 (2d Cir. 2016). While a court is generally prohibited from considering "materials outside the four corners of the complaint," Halebian v. Berv, 644 F.3d 122, 130 n.7 (2d Cir. 2011), "federal courts have complete discretion to determine whether or not to accept the submission of any material beyond the pleadings offered in conjunction with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion," Giugliano v. FS2 Capital Partners, LLC, No. 14-cv-7240, 2015 WL 5124796, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2015) (Spatt, J.) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
The Court may consider:
(1) facts alleged in the complaint and documents attached to it or incorporated in it by reference, (2) documents "integral" to the complaint and relied upon in it, even if not attached or incorporated by reference, (3) documents or information contained in [the] defendant's motion papers if plaintiff has knowledge or possession of the material and relied on it in framing the complaint, (4) public disclosure documents required by law to be, and that have been, filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission, and (5) facts of which notice may properly be taken under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Envtl. Servs. v. Recycle Green Servs., 7 F. Supp. 3d 260, 270 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (Spatt, J.) (quoting In re Merrill Lynch & Co., 273 F. Supp. 2d 351, 356-57 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)), aff'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds sub nom. Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 395 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2005), vacated on other grounds, 547 U.S. 71, 126 S. Ct. 1503, 164 L. Ed. 2d 179 (2006); accord Healthnow New York, Inc. v. Catholic Health Sys., Inc., No. 14-CV-986S, 2015 WL 5673123, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2015); Oberstein v. SunPower Corp., No. 07-CV-1155, 2010 WL 1705868, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2010).
The Defendants ask that the Court consider three exhibits attached to their motion to dismiss: (1) the Plaintiff's tenant agreement; (2) court documents from a New York State landlord and tenant proceeding concerning the Plaintiff's eviction from the House, namely, an Order to Show Cause to Vacate a Default Judgment; and (3) two text messages sent by the Plaintiff to Sean. ECF 33-2 at 6. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff referenced the tenant agreement and his text messages with Sean in the first amended complaint. Id. They also assert that the Court should...
To continue reading
Request your trial