On October 2, 2013, Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP filed a lawsuit alleging that Defendants Moonstruck Diners failed to pay non-exempt workers the proper minimum wage rate, overtime pay and spread-of-hours pay as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law.
On July 2, 2014 the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Granting Class Certification, Court Authorization and Expedited Discovery pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and denied Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Juarez v. 449 Rest., Inc., No. 13-cv-06977 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2014), ECF. No. 33.
The named Defendants include three Moonstruck Diner locations – 449 Restaurant, Inc., 88 2nd Ave. Food Corp., and Pirgos Food Corp. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s claims against 88 2nd Ave. Food Corp. and Pirgos Food Corp. contending that those claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted as Plaintiff has not alleged that he ever worked more than 40 hours in any week at those two locations and therefore has not adequately pled that those locations violated the FLSA overtime provisions. The court rejected this argument, adopting the “single integrated enterprise” test pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. The court held that Plaintiff sufficiently pled facts that indicate that the three locations operated as a single integrated enterprise, thus qualifying as a single statutory “employer” under the FLSA, making 88 2nd Ave. Food Corp. and Pirgos Food Corp. additionally responsible for the hours Plaintiff worked at all three locations.
Additionally, Defendants contested Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification as to Plaintiff’s request that class notice be sent to employees at 88 2nd Ave. Food Corp. and Pirgos Food Corp., arguing that Plaintiff had not demonstrated a sufficient “factual nexus” between himself and the employees at these locations as he primarily worked at the 449 Restaurant, Inc. location. The Court rejected this notion holding that Plaintiff met his minimal burden at this stage of litigation with circumstantial evidence that the corporate structure suggested common ownership and control and his testimony that he worked at all three locations. Thus, Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that employees at 88 2nd Ave. Food Corp. and Pirgos Food Corp. were similarly situated under the FLSA as they were subject to the same unlawful policies and practices.
For more information about the Moonstruck Diners case, please visit our current cases section at www.fslawfirm.com.