LEE v. DONG BANG CORPORATION et al

Filing 74

OPINION AND ORDER denying 50 Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 11/22/2024. (qa, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY YU JUNG LEE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, No. 22-cv-01336(MEF)(SDA) OPINION and ORDER Plaintiff, v. DONG BANG CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. * * * For the purposes of this brief Opinion and Order, the Court assumes full familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case. * * * The relevant undisputed facts, for now, are as follows. An employee worked at a restaurant1 as a server. See Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 1; Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Statement of Facts (“Plaintiff’s Response”) ¶ 1. The employee was paid wages, which she received every other week. See, e.g., Ju Hi Kim Deposition at 57:4-9; Yu Jung Lee Deposition (Jan. 19, 2023) at 30:9-15. She also received both credit card based tips and cash tips at the end of each day she worked. See Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 40; Plaintiff’s Response ¶ 40; see also Ju Hi Kim Deposition at 85:12-15; Yu Jung Lee Deposition (Jan. 19, 2023) at 49:18. 1 Dong Bang Grill. * * * The employee, referred to from here as “the Plaintiff,”2 sued the restaurant, plus several individuals in ownership and management roles, “the Defendants.”3 The Plaintiff brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (“NJWHL”) for failure to pay minimum wage and also for unpaid overtime. See Complaint ¶¶ 45-73. And she also pressed common law claims, for conversion and unjust enrichment. See id. ¶¶ 74-80. Discovery has been completed, and the Defendants now move for partial summary judgment as to the Plaintiff’s claims.4 * * * Motions for summary judgment should be granted if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. 729, 737 (2023); Cellco P’ship v. White Deer Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 74 F.4th 96, 100 (3d Cir. 2023). In assessing a summary judgment motion, “a district court may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence[.]” Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004). Rather, the court must “view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and [draw] all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Canada v. Samuel Grossi & Sons, Inc., 49 F.4th 340, 345 (3d Cir. 2022); accord Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 660 (2014). 2 Yu Jung Lee. The corporate defendant, Dong Bang Corporation, operates Dong Bang Grill. See Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 1. The individual defendants are Mi Ja Kim, Ju Hi Kim, and Sang Kyu Kim. 3 Two things. First, the Plaintiff has also moved to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 as to her state law claims. The Court does not consider that motion here. Second, the Defendants’ motion does not pertain to five weeks during which they concede the Plaintiff was underpaid. See Motion for Summary Judgment at 4-5. 4 2 * * * The Plaintiff’s claims are premised on two main factual assertions. * * * First, that the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff enough. particular, the Plaintiff argues she was paid less than is required under both the FLSA and NJWHL’s minimum wage and overtime provisions. See Complaint ¶¶ 45-73. In The Defendants’ response: the Plaintiff was adequately paid, and therefore they are entitled to summary judgment. See Motion for Summary Judgment at 8-10. As the basis of this argument, the Defendants point to “Wage Receipt Sheets,” along with other documents, which purport to show the Plaintiff’s hours and pay during the relevant period. See id. at 9; Docket Entry 51; Docket Entry 52, Exhibit 1. But the Plaintiff testified that one of the Defendants physically covered the referenced wage receipts when she signed them, so that she could not see the hours and wages listed to verify they were correct. See Yu Jung Lee Deposition (Jan. 19, 2023) at 87:12 to 88:15. And she testified that one of the Defendants also directed her to sign fraudulent time sheets that were “made up records.” See Yu Jung Lee Declaration ¶ 4. The Plaintiff’s testimony creates a genuine dispute of material fact. This precludes summary judgment. See Dupree, 598 U.S. at 737. The accuracy of the Defendants’ wage records is critical to determining whether the Plaintiff was paid proper wages. See Canada, 49 F.4th at 345 (“A factual dispute is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.”) (cleaned up). But the records’ accuracy is disputed. * * * Second, the Plaintiff’s claims as to conversion and unjust enrichment rely on the contention that the Defendants improperly misappropriated a portion of the tips that the Plaintiff was owed. See Complaint ¶¶ 74-80. She asserts that, at certain points, the Defendants retained between 3% and 25% of the tips paid by restaurant customers on credit cards and intended for servers. See Yu Jung Lee Declaration ¶ 10; Yu Jung Lee Deposition (Jan. 19, 2023) at 88:16 to 90:20. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?