Zhang v. Shun Lee Palace Rest., Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | 17-CV-00840 (VSB) |
| Parties | BAO GUO ZHANG, GUOYI WANG, TONG WEI WU, ZHI QIANG LU, CHENG XIA WANG, CHUNLIN ZHANG, JUN QING ZHAO, and ZE JUN ZHANG a/k/a Zejun Zhang, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and YA QIANG ZHANG, JUN LING ZHAO, HUI MIN ZHAO, JING GUAN, HUI LIANG ZHAO, and LI WENG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHUN LEE PALACE RESTAURANT, INC. D/B/A SHUN LEE PALACE, T&W RESTAURANT, INC. D/B/A SHUN LEE WEST, T&W PAYROLL SERVICES, INC., JOHN HWANG, MICHAEL TONG, BIN HU, and WILLIAM HWANG, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Appearances:
John Troy
Aaron B Schweitzer
TROY LAW, PLLC
Counsel for Plaintiffs Guoyi Wang, Tong Wei Wu, Zhi Qiang Lu a/k/a Zhiqiang Lu, Steven Cheung, Quekyeow Yap, Haiping Wu, Weijun Zhen, Shude Zhang, Keeyew Foo, Tsunming Fong, Terry Wong, Mingsung Chan, Leungtack Choi, Fong Yue, Guoliang Xu, Billy Qin, Monaliza Wong, and Weiting Zhao Jian Hang
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
Counsel for Plaintiffs Cheng Xia Wang, Chunlin Zhang, Jun Qing Zhao, Bao Guo Zhang, Ze Jun Zhang a/k/a Zejun Zhang, Ya Qiang Zhang, Jun Ling Zhao, Hui Min Zhao, Jing Guan, Hui Liang Zhao, and Li Weng
Kevin K. Yam
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
New York City, NY
Before me is the motion of Defendants Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc. ("Shun Lee Palace"), T & W Restaurant, Inc. ("Shun Lee West"), T & W Payroll Services, Inc. ("T & W Payroll"), John Hwang, William Hwang, Michael Tong, and Bin Hu a/k/a Bin Wu (collectively, "Defendants") to dismiss the Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Bao Guo Zhang, Guoyi Wang, Tong Wei Wu, Zhi Qiang Lu, Cheng Xia Wang, Chunlin Zhang, Jun Qing Zhao, Ze Jun Zhang, Ya Qiang Zhang, Jun Ling Zhao, Hui Min Zhao, Jing Guan, Hui Liang Zhao, and Li Weng pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 169.)
Also before me are the motion of Plaintiffs Guoyi Wang, Tong Wei Wu, Zhi Qiang Lu, Steven Cheung, Quekyeow Yap, Haiping Wu, Weijun Zhen, Shude Zhang, Keeyew Foo, Tsunming Fong, Terry Wong, Mingsung Chan, Leungtack Choi, Fong Yue, Guoliang Xu, Billy Qin, Monaliza Wong, and Weiting Zhao (collectively, the "Troy Plaintiffs") for reconsideration of my denial of their request for judicial review over the settlements between Plaintiffs Chunlin Zhang and Bao Guo Zhang and Defendants pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6.3, (Doc. 202), and Defendants' cross-motion for sanctions andattorneys' fees against Troy Law, PLLC ("Troy Law") and John Troy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, (Doc. 205).
For the following reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Troy Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Troy Law and John Troy are ORDERED to show cause in writing within 30 days from the date of entry of this order as to why sanctions against them are not warranted in light of the conduct discussed below.
Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (Counts I and III), alleged violations of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), § 190 et seq. (Counts II, IV, V, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII), breach of implied contract (Counts VI and VII), fraudulent filing of Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") returns (Count XII), and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the New York General Business Law ("GBL") § 349 (Count XIII). Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have engaged in a pattern of failing to pay compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty (40) each work-week, and spread-of-hours compensation for all days where the interval between starting and quitting time was greater than ten (10) hours. (Doc. 152, Am. Compl. at ¶ 2.)1 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed to provide employees with wage statements and wage notice at the time of hiring. (Id. ¶ 2.)
Counts I, II, VI, X, and XI are brought by Plaintiffs Bao Guo Zhang, Guoyi Wang, Tong Wei Hu, Zhi Qiang Lu, Cheng Xia Wang, Chunlin Zhang, Jun Qing Zhao, and Zejun Zhang (the "Shun Lee I Plaintiffs") against Defendants Shun Lee Palace, Shun Lee West, John Hwang,William Hwang, Michael Tong, and Bin Hu (the "Shun Lee I Defendants"), as well as by Plaintiffs Ya Qiang Zhang, Jun Ling Zhao, Hui Min Zhao, Jing Guan, Hui Liang Zhao, and Li Weng (the "Shun Lee II Plaintiffs") against Defendants T & W Shun Lee West, T & W Payroll, and Bin Hu (the "Shun Lee II Defendants"). Counts VII, VIII, IX, XII, and XIII are brought by the Shun Lee I Plaintiffs against the Shun Lee I Defendants only. Count III is brought by the Shun Lee I Plaintiffs against the Shun Lee I Defendants, and Shun Lee II Plaintiff Li Weng against the Shun Lee II Defendants. Count IV is brought by the Shun Lee I Plaintiffs against the Shun Lee I Defendants, and Shun Lee II Plaintiffs Li Weng and Jun Ling Zhao against the Shun Lee II Defendants. Count V is brought by the Shun Lee I Plaintiffs against the Shun Lee I Defendants, and Shun Lee II Plaintiffs Jun Ling Zhao, Jing Guan, and Ya Qiang Zhang against the Shun Lee II Defendants.
The Shun Lee I Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a putative collective and class action complaint against the Shun Lee I Defendants on February 3, 2017. (Doc. 1.) The Shun Lee I Defendants answered on April 21, 2017. (Doc. 21.) On April 8, 2019, the Shun Lee II Plaintiffs filed a complaint with similar claims against T & W Payroll, Shun Lee West, Michael Tong, and Bin Wu in a separate action. (No. 1:19-cv-03094, Doc. 4.) On May 31, 2019, the Shun Lee II Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. (No. 1:19-cv-03094, Doc. 14.) On October 10, 2019, upon application by Hang Law to consolidate the two actions, I directed the parties in both matters to submit a joint status letter regarding the parties' respective positions as to consolidation. (Doc. 135; No. 1:19-cv-03094, Doc. 17.) On November 7, 2019, I directed the Clerk of Court to consolidate the action brought by the Shun Lee I Plaintiffs with the action brought by the Shun Lee II Plaintiffs. (Doc. 142.) The Plaintiffs accordingly filed an AmendedComplaint incorporating the claims of both sets of Plaintiffs on December 17, 2019. (Am. Compl.)
On February 14, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss in part the Amended Complaint. (Docs. 169, 171, and 172.) On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs represented by Troy Law, Guoyi Wang, Tong Wei Wu, Zhi Qiang Lu, Steven Cheung, Quekyeow Yap, Haiping Wu, Weijun Zhen, Shude Zhang, Keeyew Foo, Tsunming Fong, Terry Wong, Mingsung Chan, Leungtack Choi, Fong Yue, Guoliang Xu, Billy Qin, Monaliza Wong, and Weiting Zhao (the "Troy Plaintiffs"), filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. 2 The Plaintiffs represented by Hang & Associates, PLLC ("Hang Law"), Cheng Xia Wang, Chunlin Zhang, Jun Qing Zhao, Ze Jun Zhang, Ya Qiang Zhang, Jun Ling Zhao, Hui Min Zhao, Jing Guan, Hui Liang Zhao, and Li Weng (the "Hang Plaintiffs"), did not oppose Defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 9, 2020, Defendants filed their reply. (Doc. 175.)
On September 3, 2020, Hang Law and Defendants' counsel filed a joint letter update that they had reached an agreement to settle the claims of Plaintiffs Chunlin Zhang and Bao Guo Zhang. (Doc. 192.) The Hang Plaintiffs stated that they agreed that Chunlin Zhang and Bao Guo Zhang had no viable federal wage claims against Defendants, so the settlement and release would comprise only of a waiver of the two Plaintiffs' state claims. (Id. at 1.) Accordingly, the settling parties asserted that they were not required to submit a letter seeking approval of the settlement pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F. 3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). (Id.) On September 6, Troy Law filed an opposition to the settlement between Chunlin Zhangand Bao Guo Zhang and Defendants, and asked that I require the parties to submit their settlement agreement for judicial review. (Doc. 199.) On September 11, 2020, Defendants filed a letter requesting that I deny Troy Law's opposition to the joint report of Defendants and Chunlin Zhang and Bao Guo Zhang settling those Plaintiffs' NYLL claims without judicial review. (Doc. 200.) On September 14, 2020, I denied Troy Law's request to subject the settlement agreement to judicial review. (Doc. 201.)
On September 28, 2020, Troy Law filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the denial of their application. (Docs. 202-204.) On October 12, 2020, Defendants filed their opposition to the Troy Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and the instant cross-motion for sanctions and attorneys' fees against Troy Law and John Troy. (Doc. 205.) On October 19, 2020, the Troy Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for reconsideration and opposition to Defendants' cross-motion for sanctions and attorneys' fees. (Doc. 207.) On November 2, 2020, Defendants filed a reply in support of their cross-motion for sanctions and attorneys' fees. (Doc. 208.)3
To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain 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 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim will have "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant isliable for the misconduct alleged." Id. This standard demands "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. "Plausibility . . . depends on a host of considerations: the full factual picture presented by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial