Yi Ching Liu v. Cheng Du 23 Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 17-12867 (ES) (CLW) |
| Parties | YI CHING LIU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHENG DU 23 INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Before the Court is Defendants submissions, the Court decides this matter without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. As a result, the Court need not address Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.
Plaintiffs bring this collective action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated alleging that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C § 201 et seq. by failing to pay them minimum and overtime wages and keep accurate employment records. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-3).
Cheng Du is incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey and maintains a principal place of business in Wayne, New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 13). Defendants Jiang, Ching Xing Lin, and Cindy Lin are owners and officers of Cheng Du. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18 & 24-25). Plaintiffs allege that all three individual defendants had the power to hire and fire Cheng Du employees, supervised and controlled employees' work schedules, determined employees' payment rates and payment methods, and maintained employees' records. (Id. ¶¶ 18 & 24-25). Throughout the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “willfully,” “intentionally,” and “maliciously” violated the FLSA. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 23, 26-28, 35, 95 & 102-03; see id. ¶ 1). The Court summarizes the allegations below as to each named plaintiff.
Cheng Du employed Liu, a New York resident, as a dishwasher and miscellaneous kitchen worker from January 20 to April 27, 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 7 & 41). Defendant Jiang would pick up Liu and other employees in a company van in Flushing, New York at 9:50 A.M., drive them to Cheng Du in New Jersey for their shifts, and return them to Flushing around 11:15 P.M. (Id. ¶¶ 20 & 51). Jiang hired Liu to work at Cheng Du through Red Apple employment agency. (Id. ¶¶ 42-44). From on or about January 20 to April 1, 2017, Liu worked six days a week, for a total of 70.5 hours. (Id. ¶ 48). From on or about April 2 to April 20, 2017, Liu worked three days a week, for a total of 35.25 hours. (Id. ¶ 49). From on or about April 21 to April 27, 2017, Liu worked one day a week, for a total of 11.75 hours. (Id. ¶ 50). Each workday, Liu received two meal breaks of about ten to fifteen minutes, but never had rest breaks. (Id. ¶ 53).
Liu agreed to receive $2,200.00 in monthly pay from Cheng Du.[3] (Id. ¶¶ 45 & 54). Liu received a cash payment of $1,016.00 every other Thursday, regardless of the hours he worked. (Id. ¶ 56). Thus, Liu received $2,032 per month, $168.00 below the agreed-upon rate. (Id. ¶¶ 5758). Cheng Du did not pay Liu overtime for the hours he worked beyond forty per week, and Liu never received a statement of wage deductions. (Id. ¶¶ 59 & 62). Defendants allegedly failed to preserve any of Liu's employment records. (Id. ¶ 37). Liu is an original named plaintiff to this action, filed on December 10, 2017. (Id. ¶ 8).
Cheng Du employed Yang, a New York resident, as a runner from roughly November 2014 to May 2015, and briefly in October 2015. (Id. ¶¶ 9 & 63). Yang typically worked five days a week, for a total of 56.5 hours per week. (Id. ¶ 64). Yang usually assumed the role of takeout packer but spent over two hours on any given workday on non-tipped side work (i.e., packing delivery orders, mopping the restroom, washing dishes, and preparing food). (Id. ¶ 69). Each workday, Yang received two meal breaks of about ten to fifteen minutes; he also had one forty-five-minute rest break, except during Saturday and Sunday shifts. (Id. ¶ 65).
Cheng Du paid Yang $25.00 a day in cash, and he received tips through the waitstaff. (Id. ¶¶ 66-67, 70 & 73). Cheng Du did not pay Yang overtime for the hours he worked beyond forty per week, and Yang never received a statement of wage deductions. (Id. ¶¶ 71 & 74). Although Defendants never kept records reflecting the hours and days Yang worked, they recorded Yang's pay between November 10, 2014, through October 25, 2015. (Id. ¶ 39; see id. ¶ 68). Yang consented to become a plaintiff in this matter on March 19, 2018. (Id. ¶ 10).
Cheng Du employed Hsu as a waiter from roughly January 2015 to June 2015. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 75 & 79). Hsu typically worked five days a week, for a total of 54.33 hours per week. (Id. ¶ 76). Like Yang, Hsu regularly spent more than two hours on any given workday on non-tipped side work. (Id. ¶ 81). Each workday, Hsu received two meal breaks of about ten to fifteen minutes; he also had one forty-five-minute rest break, except during Saturday and Sunday shifts. (Id. ¶ 77).
Cheng Du paid Hsu $25.00 per day in cash; however, Hsu received tips as a waiter. (Id. ¶¶ 78, 79 & 82). Throughout his employment, Hsu pooled his tips, which were shared among the waitstaff and Yang, the takeout packer. (Id. ¶ 85). Cheng Du did not pay Hsu overtime for the hours he worked beyond forty per week, and Hsu never received a statement of wage deductions. (Id. ¶¶ 83 & 86). Hsu is an original named plaintiff to this action, filed on December 10, 2017. (Id. ¶ 12).
Defendants allegedly failed to keep consistent employment records for plaintiff Hsu. They did, however, record the days Hsu worked per week between March 30 and June 21, 2015; they also recorded the amounts paid to Hsu between January 5 and June 28, 2015. (Id. ¶ 38; see also id. ¶ 80). Defendants allegedly knew how to keep employment records because they maintained them for different employees. (Id. ¶ 38 ()). Defendants handwrote these records on a computer-generated template, which provided for half-hour work increments. (Id.). The form also contained a place for the employee to sign and acknowledge the accuracy of the recorded hours and wages. (Id.).
On December 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. (D.E. No. 1 (“Compl.”)). Shortly thereafter, Defendants moved to dismiss. (D.E. No. 13). On August 15, 2018, the Court denied the motion as moot, and Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss on October 26, 2018. (D.E. Nos. 47 & 60). On April 2, 2019, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor terminated Defendants' motion because five plaintiffs arbitrated their claims under their employment agreements and permitted Defendants to refile their motion to dismiss as to the non-arbitrating plaintiffs. (D.E. No. 75).
Defendants refiled their motion to dismiss, arguing that (i) Hsu and Yang's FLSA claims are time barred by the applicable statute of limitations, (ii) Liu's FLSA claim must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Cheng Du never employed him, and (iii) Yang's FLSA claim is barred by his November 18, 2015 settlement agreement with Defendants. (See generally D.E. No. 76-1). On January 31, 2020, the Court held oral argument on Defendants' motion. (D.E. No. 99). The Court (i) dismissed Hsu and Yang's FLSA claims without prejudice for failure to plead a willful violation under the three-year statute of limitations, (ii) dismissed Liu's claim without prejudice for failure to plead facts about his employee status that would permit the Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over his FLSA claim, and (iii) denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Yang's claim as barred under the terms of his settlement agreement. (See generally D.E. Nos. 99 & 100; see also D.E. No. 121 (“OA Tr.”)).[4] In doing so, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to amend their complaint with allegations that reflect Defendants' willful conduct and Liu's employment. (D.E. No. 100 at 1-2; OA Tr. at 34:1-7, 34:13-20 & 42:18-43:7). The Court also granted Defendants leave to file a partial motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Yang's claim is barred by his settlement agreement. (D.E. No. 100 at 1; see generally OA Tr.).
Plaintiffs amended their complaint. (See Am. Compl.). Defendants' Motion followed and is fully briefed. (D.E. No. 122-1 ( ); D.E. No. 141-8 (“Opp. Br.”);[5] D.E. No. 142-1 (“Reply”)).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), a party may move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed. When adjudicating such a motion, a Court applies the same standard as that under Rule 12(b)(6). See Wolfington v Reconstructive Orthopaedic Assocs. II PC, 935 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2019); Turbe v. Gov't of V.I., 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991). That is, the Court must accept “all well-pleaded allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” City of Cambridge Ret. Sys. v. Altisource Asset Mgmt. Corp., 908 F.3d 872, 878 (3d Cir. 2018). And the Court must “disregard threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, legal conclusions, and conclusory statements.” Id. at 878-79 (quoting James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d 675, 681 (3d Cir. 2012)). The complaint must ...
To continue reading
Request your trial