Argudo et al v. Parea Group LLC, et al
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 35 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint in its Entirety as to Parea Group LLC d/b/a Trattoria Il Mulino, filed by Parea Group LLC. Parea's motion to dismiss is DENIED (without prejudice to renewal of its legal arguments at the summary judgment stage). In light of that ruling, the stay of discovery with respect to Parea is hereby lifted. All dates and deadlines set forth in the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (Docket No. 44) remain in effect. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 35. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/25/2018) (ras)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
HENRY ARGUDO, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
PAREA GROUP LLC, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
05/25/2018
18-CV-678 (JMF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs, former servers at Trattoria Il Mulino (“Il Mulino”) in Manhattan, bring claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and New York Labor
Law (“NYLL”), N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 193, 196-d, 198-b, 650 et seq., against the Parea Group LLC
(“Parea”), doing business as Trattoria Il Mulino; IMNY GS LLC, doing business as Il Mulino
Tribeca; GFB Restaurant Corp., doing business as Il Mulino Downtown; Wonderful Restaurant
LLC, doing business as Il Mulino Uptown; K.G. IM Management, LLC (“KGIM”); Brian
Galligan; and Gerald Katzoff. (See Docket No. 31 (“Am. Compl.”), at ¶¶ 4, 29-30, 59-80).
Although most Defendants have answered, Parea moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss. (Docket No. 35). Parea — which owns Trattoria Il
Mulino, one of the restaurants at issue, but contracts with KGIM to operate the restaurant —
contends that it does not qualify as Plaintiffs’ “employer” for purposes of the FLSA or NYLL.
(Docket No. 35, Ex. 4, at 1-2).
Whether the allegations with respect to Parea are sufficient to establish an employeremployee relationship is a close question. But, mindful of the fact that the prevailing tests in this
Circuit are “fact-intensive,” Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co. Inc., 355 F.3d 61, 76 n.13 (2d Cir.
2003); see also, e.g., Tulino v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-7106 (JMF), 2018 WL 1568970, at
*5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018); Jianjun Chen v. 2425 Broadway Chao Rest., LLC, No. 1:16-CV5735 (GHW), 2017 WL 2600051, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2017), and that the Court must treat
the allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in
Plaintiffs’ favor, see, e.g., Burch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir.
2008) (per curiam), the Court concludes that Parea’s motion falls short. Among other things, the
Amended Complaint alleges that “Parea retains ultimate authority over all of KGIM’s
decisions”; that “Parea requires KGIM to abide by certain ‘Operating Standards’ that Parea
established”; that “Parea must approve and has complete authority to make changes to Trattoria
Il Mulino’s annual budget, which include [sic] payroll costs”; that Plaintiffs’ payroll records are
Parea’s property; that “Parea, not KGIM, issued paychecks directly to Il Mulino employees”
during certain periods relevant here; and that, pursuant to the agreement between Parea and
KGIM, “Parea has clear ultimate authority over the hiring and firing of employees, staffing and
payroll practices at Trattoria Il Mulino.” (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20-28). Even assuming that some of
these allegations are in tension, if not conflict, with the written agreement between Parea and
KGIM, they are, taken together, sufficient to state a plausible claim that Parea qualifies as a joint
employer for purposes of the FLSA and NYLL. (See id. ¶ 10 (alleging that Parea is “part of a
single integrated enterprise that jointly employed Plaintiffs . . . at all relevant times”)).
Accordingly, Parea’s motion to dismiss is DENIED (without prejudice to renewal of its
legal arguments at the summary judgment stage). In light of that ruling, the stay of discovery
with respect to Parea is hereby lifted. All dates and deadlines set forth in the Case Management
Plan and Scheduling Order (Docket No. 44) remain in effect.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 35.
SO ORDERED.
Date: May 25, 2018
New York, New York
2
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?