Xue Hui Zhang v. Ichiban Grp.
| Docket Number | 1:17-CV-148 (MAD/TWD) |
| Decision Date | 19 September 2023 |
| Parties | XUE HUI ZHANG, YUE HUA CHEN, and GUI YONG ZHANG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ICHIBAN GROUP, LLC, ICHIBAN FOOD SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Ichiban Japanese and Chinese Restaurant, CHEN & JU, INC. d/b/a Takara, DAVID IP, LIPING JU, and TYNG QUH JU, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
TROY LAW, PLLC JOHN TROY, ESQ. AARON B. SCHWEITZER, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants
MANN LAW FIRM, PC MATTHEW J. MANN, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants-Counter Claimants
On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff Xue Hui Zhang commenced the instant proceeding as a putative collective and class action alleging various federal and state labor law violations against Defendants Ichiban Group, LLC, Ichiban Food Services, Inc., Chen & Ju, Inc., David L. Ip, Liping Ju, and Tyng Quh Ju ("Defendants"). See Dkt. No. 1. The complaint was later amended to include two additional plaintiffs, Yue Hua Chen and Gui Yong Zhang, as proposed representatives. See Dkt. No. 89. On March 3, 2020, this Court conditionally granted certification relative to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See Dkt. No. 173. Thereafter, on May 21, 2021, this Court conditionally granted class certification as to the state law claims under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 201. Currently pending before the Court are Defendants' motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 252) and class decertification (Dkt. No. 295). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions are granted.
Defendant Ichiban Food Services Inc. ("Ichiban Inc.") is a former business corporation that, for about a decade until May 15, 2016, operated a restaurant known as Ichiban Japanese and Chinese Restaurant ("Ichiban Restaurant") at 1652 Western Avenue, Albany, New York. See Dkt. No. 255-11 at ¶ 15. Defendant David Ip ("Defendant Ip") owned a quarter interest in Ichiban Inc. and "oversaw the day to day operations." Id. at ¶ 17.
Defendant Ichiban Group LLC ("Ichiban LLC") was and remains a limited liability company incorporated in the State of New York. See Dkt. No. 252-2 at ¶ 7. There are four LLC members, including Defendant Ip. See id. at ¶ 9; Dkt. No. 255-11 at ¶ 21. Since February 2011, Ichiban LLC has not directly employed any individuals. See Dkt. No. 252-2 at ¶ 9. Ichiban LLC owns and leases a real estate property located at 1652 Western Avenue-the site of the former Ichiban Restaurant. See Dkt. No. 252-2 at ¶¶ 7-8; Dkt. No. 252-32. Ichiban LLC collects rent and pays debts, including the mortgage, taxes, and insurance. See Dkt. No. 252-2 at ¶ 9.
In May 2016, Ichiban Inc. and Ichiban LLC entered into a written agreement with Defendant Chen & Ju Inc. ("Chen & Ju Inc."). See Dkt. No. 252-30. According to the agreement, Chen & Ju Inc. would begin operating the former Ichiban Restaurant under the name "Takara." Dkt. No. 255-11 at ¶ 16; Dkt. No. 252-3 at ¶¶ 7-8; Dkt. No. 252-30. Chen & Ju Inc. purchased equipment and other assets from Ichiban Inc. and leased the 1652 Western Avenue property from Ichiban LLC. See Dkt. No. 252-3 at ¶ 22. Chen & Ju Inc. was to pay $7,000.00 or $7,500.00 in rent each month. See Dkt. No. 255-2 at 33.
Chen & Ju Inc. was a business corporation owned by Defendants Tyng Quh Ju and Liping Ju.[2] Dk. No. 252-3 at ¶ 8. Although Chen & Ju Inc. had existed since February 2014, it had "engaged in a completely different type of business enterprise." Id. at ¶ 8. Initially, Defendants Tyng Quh Ju and Liping Ju oversaw Takara's daily operations. See Dkt. No. 255-11 at ¶ 18. Together, they "remodeled" and "revamped" the restaurant, "commissioning] new menus" to "meet [their] new image." Dkt. No. 252-3 at ¶ 9; see also Dkt. No. 252-2 at ¶ 33; Dkt. No. 25237; Dkt. No. 252-38. Chen & Ju Inc." invited any qualified person to apply for employment[,]" hiring some employees who had worked at Ichiban Restaurant and some who had not. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14; see also Dkt. No. 252-52; Dkt. No. 252-53. Plaintiffs did not work or apply for employment at Takara. See Dkt. No. 252-3 at ¶ 15.
In 2018, Chen & Ju Inc. filed for bankruptcy and ceased operating Takara. Dkt. No. 2523 at ¶¶ 1, 17. A final decree issued on July 9, 2019, in the United States Bankruptcy Court Northern District of New York. See Dkt. No. 252-36. The leave for the 1652 Western Avenue property "was avoided in the bankruptcy." Dkt. No. 252-2 at ¶ 8. Indeed, since Takara's closing in 2018, Defendant Ip and/or Ichiban LLC has leased the property to at least two different restaurants. See Dkt. No. 252-2 at ¶¶ 8-9.
Plaintiff Yue Hua Chen ("Plaintiff Chen") worked as a "waitress" for various periods of time at Ichiban Restaurant-namely: from about November 1, 2009, through about October 4, 2011; from about November 19, 2011, through about December 30, 2013; and from about February 27, 2014, through about December 7, 2015. Dkt. No. 255-11 at ¶ 12. Plaintiff Chen worked eleven hours a day, six days a week from 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., every Monday through Thursday, with an additional twelve hours on Fridays, and eleven and a half hours on Saturdays. See Dkt. No. 252-23 at ¶ 6. On Sundays, she would work ten and a half hours. See id.
From at least February 2014 to December 2015, once a month Plaintiff Chen received $500.00 in cash as wage compensation. See Dkt. No. 252-23 at ¶ 9. Additionally, she received daily tips from customers, which the other waiters and waitresses shared. See id. at ¶¶ 41-47. The tips were divided "equally" every night. Dkt. No. 252-14 at 145. According to Plaintiff Chen, her daily tip share was "normally . . . between sixty dollars ($60) to one hundred dollars ($100)[.]" Dkt. No. 252-23 at ¶ 42; see also Dkt. No. 252-14 at 147. The highest amount of daily tips she received "was on Christmas reaching two hundred dollars ($200)." Dkt. No. 252-53 at ¶ 41. On the other hand, "[w]hen business was bad like in snow days, the tips were just thirty dollars ($30) a day[.]" Id.; see also Dkt. No. 252-14 at 147.
Plaintiff Chen also received daily meals and lodging as part of her compensation. See Dkt. No. 252-14 at 144. For instance, employees received breakfast, lunch, and dinner, often fixed at designated times throughout the day. See Dkt. No. 255-2 at 105-106; Dkt No. 252-20 at 14-15, 50-51. The lodging consisted of "dormitory" rooms at a suburban house located a few minutes' walking distance from the restaurant. Dkt. No. 252-14 at 41, 144; Dkt. No. 252-24 at ¶¶ 25-29. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff Chen would be lodged with anywhere between ten and seventeen other employees. See Dkt. No. 25-24 at ¶¶ 28-29. Plaintiff Chen did not pay rent; nor was any money for lodging taken from her wages. See Dkt. No. 252-14 at 41. The approximate value of the housing was about one thousand dollars a month, or $33.00 per day. See Dkt. No. 252-14 at 144; Dkt. No. 252-2 at ¶ 20.
Plaintiff Xue Hui Zhang ("Plaintiff X. Zhang") worked as a "cook" at Ichiban Restaurant from about November 20, 2008, to December 7, 2015. Dkt. No. 255-11 at ¶ 11. During that period, Plaintiff X. Zhang would work eleven and a half hours from 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., every Monday through Thursday, except generally for Tuesday. See Dkt. No. 252-21 at ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 252-22 at ¶¶ 8-9. On Saturdays, he would work twelve hours from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. See id. And on Sundays, he would work ten and a half hours from 11:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. See Id. Thus, in total Plaintiff X. Zhang "would work for about sixty-nine and a half (69.5) hours a week." Id. at ¶ 8. From at least February 2014 to May 31, 2014, Plaintiff X. Zhang received $2,800.00 once a month as compensation. See id. at ¶ 11. Thereafter, from June 1, 2014, to December 7, 2015, he was paid $3,000.00 once a month. See id. at ¶ 12. During his employment, Plaintiff X. Zhang also received the same meals and lodging as Plaintiff Chen. See id. At ¶¶ 27- 32.
According to Plaintiff Gui Yong Zhang ("Plaintiff G. Zhang"), he worked as a "fry wok" for an initial three months from about March 1, 2013, through about June 30, 2013, and again for a four-month stretch from about September 1, 2014, through about December 13, 2014. Dkt. No. 255-11 at ¶ 13. Plaintiff G. Zhang asserts that he worked eleven and a half hours every Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and twelve and a half hours every Friday and Saturday, from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. See Dkt. No. 252-25 at ¶ 7. Plaintiff G. Zhang had Tuesdays off. See id. From September 1, 2014, to December 31, 2014, Plaintiff G. Zhang "was paid a flat compensation of two thousand nine hundred dollars ($2900) a month, regardless of hours worked." Id. at ¶ 10. He received this payment once a month. See id. at ¶ 11.
In light of this case's lengthy and complicated procedural history, the Court will briefly address and summarize the operative complaint and remaining claims, and will refer the parties to previous Memorandum-Decision and Orders for a more comprehensive background. See Dkt. Nos. 18, 63, 74 173, 201. At present, the (second) amended complaint (Dkt. No. 89), as conformed to subsequent stipulations regarding the parties' correct names and case captioning (Dkt. No. 246), constitutes the operative pleading. That complaint sets forth two claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") concerning minimum wage and overtime violations (Dkt. No. 89 at ¶¶ 91-94, 100-107), two similar claims under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") (id. at ¶¶...
To continue reading
Request your trial