Aguilar v. Calexico Cinco LLC
1:22-cv-06345
E.D.N.YJun 28, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs (former restaurant workers) sued Calexico-branded restaurant entities and individuals for alleged wage/hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).
- Allegations included failure to pay overtime, improper wage notifications, late payments, and failure to provide required wage statements.
- Plaintiffs worked at different Calexico restaurant locations, consistently claiming they worked through unpaid meal breaks and additional off-the-clock hours.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, arguing failure to state claims, lack of standing, and, for some claims, lack of employer status.
- The court issued a report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss, while granting some leave to amend.
- The case is at the motion to dismiss stage, so factual allegations are assumed true for the purposes of this decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of FLSA and NYLL overtime claims | Alleged uncompensated overtime; facts show >40-hour workweeks | Plaintiffs did not allege with specificity any overtime worked | Denied for all but Luna (whose claim was outside statute of limitations) |
| Individual liability of Vendley & Oleyer | They exercised control as employers under FLSA/NYLL | Allegations are conclusory and lack factual support | Granted—individuals dismissed with leave to amend |
| Corporate defendant liability/single integrated entity | Multiple entities jointly liable due to common ownership/operations | Only formal employers can be liable; others should be dismissed | Denied—plaintiffs adequately alleged single integrated enterprise theory |
| WTPA (NYLL §191, §195) private right/standing | Payment delays and notice failures create actionable harm | No private right of action under §191; no standing for §195 claims | Denied—private right under §191 and standing for §195 claims found |
| CAFA jurisdiction over class claims | Claims rest on supplemental, not CAFA, jurisdiction | CAFA exceptions bar class claims | Denied—CAFA not the jurisdictional basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Lundy v. Cath. Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (pleading FLSA overtime violations requires specificity)
- Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (broad definition of 'employer' under FLSA)
- Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (factors for determining employer status under FLSA)
- Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 ("economic reality" test for employer status)