Simmons v. Trans Express Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 February 2019
• Docket Number: 18-cv-5938 (ENV) (RLM)
• Citation: 355 F.Supp.3d 165
• Parties: Charlene SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. TRANS EXPRESS INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

355 F.Supp.3d 165

Charlene SIMMONS, Plaintiff,

v.TRANS EXPRESS INC., Defendant.

18-cv-5938 (ENV) (RLM)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed February 7, 2019

Abdul Karim Hassan, Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC, Queens Village, NY, for Plaintiff.

Aimee Sato Lin, McDermott Will & Emery, New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

ERIC N. VITALIANO, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Charlene Simmons commenced this action on October 24, 2018. (Compl., ECF No. 1). She alleges that she is entitled to unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees stemming from defendant Trans Express Inc.'s violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), and the New York Minimum Wage Act, N.Y. Lab. Law § 650 et seq. ("NYLL"). (Compl. ¶¶ 1-3). On January 18, 2019, Trans Express moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Mot., ECF No. 11). Trans Express contends that this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because of a previous proceeding in Queens Civil Court, Small Claims Part 45 ("small claims court"). (Def. Br. at 2, ECF No. 11-5). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

Background

As its name suggests, Trans Express is a transportation services company headquartered in Brooklyn. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9). Simmons was employed by Trans Express as a driver from April 2012 to April 2013 and, subsequently, from June 2016 to June 2018. (Id. ¶ 11-12). She alleges that, throughout her employment there, she was paid at a regular rate of approximately $ 12.50 an hour and worked more than 40 hours a week but was not paid at an overtime rate. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14, 16). As a result, plaintiff claims that Trans Express violated the unpaid overtime provisions of FLSA, (id. ¶¶ 32-37), as well as several provisions of NYLL, (id. ¶¶ 38-48). She seeks a declaratory judgment, along with an award of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorney's fees. (Id. ¶¶ 49-54).

Prior to bringing this lawsuit, it is undisputed, in August 2018, Simmons filed suit against Trans Express in small claims court, seeking "monies arising out of nonpayment of wages." Summons, Simmons v. Trans Express Bus Co. , No. S.C.Q. 2847/2018 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. Aug. 10, 2018). On September 4, 2018, after trial before a small claims arbitrator, Simmons was awarded a $ 1,000 judgment, along with a $ 20 disbursement. Notice of Judgment, Simmons (N.Y. Civ. Ct. Sept. 4, 2018).

This judgment was satisfied on September 28, 2018. Notice of Payment, Simmons (N.Y. Civ. Ct. Oct. 15, 2018). After the smoke cleared in state court, Simmons filed this lawsuit.

Legal Standard

When deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the district court must (1) accept as true all of the plaintiff's factual allegations and (2) draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. See Teichmann v. New York , 769 F.3d 821, 825 (2d Cir. 2014). Courts must, nevertheless, ensure that a complaint pleads "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).

"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. This "plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant's liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’ " Id. (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Although "detailed factual allegations" are not required, "[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ " Id. (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Similarly, a complaint fails to state a claim "if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ " Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).

Discussion

Trans Express contends that plaintiff's prior action in small claims court precludes the present litigation. Its motion rests entirely on the doctrine of res judicata. According to that doctrine, "[a] final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action." Rivet v. Regions Bank of La. , 522 U.S. 470, 476, 118 S.Ct. 921, 139 L.Ed.2d 912 (1998). Because the small claims action brought by Simmons was decided by a New York court, New York law determines the preclusive effect of the earlier judgment. See Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. , 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984) ("[A] federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered."); accord Cloverleaf Realty of N.Y., Inc. v. Town of Wawayanda , 572 F.3d 93, 95 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting id. ). The issues presented by the judgment awarded to Simmons are (1) whether res judicata applies to judgments rendered in small claims court, (2) whether an exception to res judicata applies due to the limits on recovery in small claims court, and (3) whether plaintiff's present claims arise from the same facts as the previous action and could have been raised in that action. The Court also considers several minor issues raised by plaintiff.

I. Preclusive Effect of Small Claims Court Judgments

As a fundamental rule, res judicata applies to judgments of New York's small claims courts. See, e.g., Walters v. T & D Towing Corp. , No. 17-cv-681 (JS) (AKT), 2018 WL 1525696, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2018) ; Chapman v. Faustin , 150 A.D.3d 647, 647, 55 N.Y.S.3d 219 (1st Dep't 2017). Arguing to the contrary, plaintiff relies in principal part on New York City Civil Court Act § 1808.¹ This statute provides that judgments in small claims courts "shall not be deemed an adjudication of any fact at issue or found therein in any other action or court." N.Y. City Civ. Ct. Act § 1808. However, the legislative history of this provision makes clear that it concerns only collateral estoppel, or issue, as opposed to claim, preclusion, and, therefore, not the preclusive effects of res judicata. The legislative bill jacket, completed at the bill's signing, which compiles the pertinent legislative history, makes clear that the very purpose of the bill was to clarify that "[t]he true intent of section 1808 is to make clear that a small claims judgment has no collateral estoppel or ‘issue preclusion’ effect in a subsequent proceeding." N.Y. Bill Jacket, 2005 A.B. 4320, Ch. 443.

An earlier version of the statute used the term "res judicata," but the legislative history of this 2005 amendment explains that "[t]he use of the term ‘res judicata’ [was] ... inapposite." Id. The Legislature noted that "[t]he courts have consistently held that a small claims judgment is res judicata when the same claim is filed in another court," and cited five examples with approval. Id. Plainly, this history confirms that New York law gives claim preclusive effect to small claims court judgments. It is a conclusion that is reinforced by abundant case law. See, e.g., Chapman , 150 A.D.3d at 647, 55 N.Y.S.3d 219 ; Tovar v. Tesoros Prop. Mgmt., LLC , 119 A.D.3d 1127, 1128-29, 990 N.Y.S.2d 307 (3d Dep't 2014) ; Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Alan Feldman Plumbing & Heating Corp. , 102 A.D.3d 754, 754-55, 961 N.Y.S.2d 183 (2d Dep't 2013). Therefore, the fact that Simmons's prior suit was decided in small claims court will not rescue this action from the bar of res judicata, if the bar is otherwise applicable.

II. Limitation on the Availability of Relief

Plaintiff contends that res judicata does not apply because the small claims court was only empowered to award $ 5,000 in damages and the present action seeks greater relief. However, the Appellate Division rejected this precise argument in Chapman , where it held that a small claims judgment operated as a bar to a future action, "even though, were plaintiff to have brought and proven his claims in [state] Supreme Court in the first instance, he could have sought a larger award." Chapman , 150 A.D.3d at 647, 55 N.Y.S.3d 219. The court explained that "plaintiffs could have pursued all relief in a single action in the Supreme Court, but opted instead to pursue the claim in the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court," and it refused to allow plaintiffs to escape the consequences of that decision. Id.

Simmons does cite case law according to which "res judicata is inapplicable if formal jurisdictional or statutory barriers precluded the plaintiff from asserting its claims in the first action." Weitz v. Wagner , No. 07-cv-1106 (KAM) (ETB), 2008 WL 5605669, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2008) (quoting Comp.Assocs. Int'l v. Altai, Inc. , 126 F.3d 365, 370 (2d Cir. 1997) ), report and recommendation adopted , ECF No. 54 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2008). Significantly, the formal jurisdictional barrier in Weitz was a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act directing all suits under the act to federal court. Id. at *4 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ). In other words, the small claims court had no power to entertain the plaintiff's claims, nor did any other state court for that matter, and, as a result, the judgment failed the requirement that it be rendered "by a court of competent jurisdiction," KIPP Acad. Charter Sch. v. United Fed'n of Teachers , 723 F. App'x 26, 29 (...