Lopez Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp. et al
Filing
261
OPINION AND ORDER: In sum, plaintiffs have abandoned and waived their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' New York Labor Law claims. Accordingly, the upcoming t rial and all dates in this action are adjourned and plaintiffs' New York Labor Law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; plaintiffs may, if they choose, pursue such claims in state court (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 7/26/2017) (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
:
LUCIA LOPEZ CATZIN, SILVIA VILLANO
:
CLEMENTE, and YADIRA AGUILAR-CANO, :
individually and on behalf of others similarly :
situated,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
THANK YOU & GOOD LUCK CORP., ZENG :
LAN WANG, OFFBROADWAY
:
LAUNDROMAT INC., 2167 THIRD AVE
:
LAUNDROMAT LLC, EXCLUSIVE
:
MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., :
IGOR BIRZH, DIMITRI BEREZOVSKY, and
:
115TH STREET AND FIRST AVE
:
LAUNDROMAT, INC.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: July 26, 2017
15-cv-7109 (KBF)
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiffs—a group of laundromat workers—commenced this action on
September 9, 2015. (ECF No. 1) In their third amended complaint, which is now
the operative complaint, plaintiffs assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) for failure to pay minimum
and overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours payments, and failure to provide
wage notices and wage statements. (See ECF No. 116.) The third amended
complaint states that “[t]his Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 29
U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (Fair Labor Standards Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (interstate
commerce), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (original federal question jurisdiction).
1
Supplemental jurisdiction over the New York State law claims is conferred by 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a), as such claims are so related in this action within such original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of
the United States Constitution.” (Id. ¶ 1.)
Trial is scheduled to commence on August 2, 2017. (See ECF No. 243.) On
July 14, 2017, the Court received the parties’ motions in limine and pretrial
materials, including the parties’ joint pretrial order, proposed voir dire, proposed
jury instructions, and proposed verdict form. (See ECF Nos. 248-254.)1 The pretrial
materials focus solely on the New York Labor Law. For example, the proposed jury
instructions state: “Plaintiffs are claiming that their former employers Exclusive
Management Solution Group, Inc., otherwise known as EMSG, and Dimitri
Berezovsky failed to pay them properly in accordance with the New York Labor
Law. In particular . . . .” (ECF No. 250 at 3.) In addition, the proposed verdict form
asks the jury to find whether there was a violation of the New York Labor Law but
does not mention the Fair Labor Standards Act. (See ECF No. 251.) On July 24,
2017, plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants’ motion in limine. (ECF No.
260.) That submission makes clear why the parties’ pretrial materials focus solely
on the New York Labor Law. In their opposition to defendants’ motion in limine,
plaintiffs state: “Plaintiffs intend to pursue at trial only their NYLL claims since
the NYLL provides all relief that the FLSA provides.” (ECF No. 257 at 1 n.1.) Put
The parties largely agree as to the contents of these materials; certain limited disputes exist that are
not material here. (See ECF No. 253.)
1
2
differently, plaintiffs have expressly abandoned and waived their claims under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Because plaintiffs have abandoned and waived their FLSA claims, there are
no longer any pending claims for which this Court has original subject matter
jurisdiction. As plaintiffs noted in their third amended complaint, original subject
matter jurisdiction was conferred by the FLSA, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. §
1337. Cf Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 538 U.S. 691, 694 (2003) (noting
that these provisions provide the district court with jurisdiction over FLSA claims).
The Court’s jurisdiction to decide plaintiffs’ NYLL claims was based upon
supplemental jurisdiction and the relationship of those claims to plaintiffs’ FLSA
claims. In the absence of plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, the Court must determine
whether it is still appropriate to proceed to trial on plaintiffs’ NYLL claims.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, when “the district court has dismissed all claims
over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims. See also Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“[W]hen a court grants a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a federal claim, the court generally retains discretion to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over pendent state-law
claims.”). This is not the precise situation presented here—as described above, the
Court has not dismissed plaintiffs’ FLSA claims; rather, such claims were expressly
and voluntarily abandoned and waived. Nonetheless, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 appears to
3
provide apt guidance to the Court and, as discussed below, the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ NYLL claims.
“Once a district court’s discretion is triggered under § 1367(c)(3), it balances
the traditional ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,’ in
deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction.” Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp.,
455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S.
343, 349 (1988)). “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated
before trial, the balance of factors to be considered . . . will point toward declining to
exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350
n.7.; see Kolari, 455 F.3d at 122. Here, fairness and comity strongly weigh against
the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Although their motives are not entirely
clear, it appears to the Court that plaintiffs may have strategically asserted FLSA
claims for the purpose of manufacturing jurisdiction, when they truly intended to
litigate only claims under the New York Labor Law, which effectively can and
should be resolved in state court.2 The Court acknowledges that it is now the eve of
trial and there is some judicial economy to be gained by the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction. However, the Court believes that doing so would
improperly reward plaintiffs’ actions and encourage similar behavior in the future.
In sum, plaintiffs have abandoned and waived their claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over plaintiffs’ New York Labor Law claims. Accordingly, the upcoming trial and all
FLSA does not provide, for example, a cause of action for failure to provide wage-notices (as the
New York Labor Law does).
2
4
dates in this action are adjourned and plaintiffs’ New York Labor Law claims are
DISMISSED without prejudice; plaintiffs may, if they choose, pursue such claims in
state court.3
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
July 26, 2017
______________________________________
KATHERINE B. FORREST
United States District Judge
Separately, the Court notes that defendants Exclusive Solution Group, Dimitri Berezovsky, and
Igor Birzh have filed a motion in limine “to preclude Plaintiffs from introducing at trial any evidence
relating [to] any alleged damages with respect to Plaintiff Yadira Aguilar Cano (“Cano”) on the
ground that Plaintiffs violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 by failing to disclose any information whatsoever
relating to such alleged damages in any of their Rule 26(a) Disclosures.” (ECF No. 248 at 1.) The
Court need not (and does not) rule on this motion at this time. Nonetheless, there appears to the
Court to be some facial merit to defendants’ position.
3
5
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?