Cao v. Flushing Paris Wedding Center LLC
1:20-cv-02336
E.D.N.YJan 25, 2022Background
- Twelve former employees sued multiple entities and individuals associated with a wedding-photography business under the FLSA and NYLL for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, and wage-statement/notice violations.
- Plaintiffs allege the same individuals operated successor entities (Max Wedding NY Inc. and Max Wedding BK Inc.) using the same locations, Facebook pages, and products after April–July 2020.
- The Huang Defendants (Max Wedding NY Inc., Max Wedding BK Inc., and Max Huang) answered and asserted counterclaims that plaintiffs sued the wrong parties, defamed them, and violated RICO by orchestrating extortionate threats and physical confrontations.
- Huang alleges asset-sale/hold-harmless provisions and bills of sale insulating the buyers from pre-sale liabilities and relies on asserted facts of alleged threats, I.O.U.s, and physical altercations by plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6). The court assumed the counterclaim allegations true for purposes of the motion but evaluated whether they stated plausible claims.
- The court granted the motion and dismissed all three counterclaims for failure to state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrong-party counterclaim | Move to dismiss: not a cognizable, pleaded cause; duplicative of affirmative defense; lacks elements of malicious-prosecution/abuse-of-process | Plaintiffs sued the wrong parties; sale documents and hold-harmless clauses exempt Huang entities from liability | Dismissed — no pleaded cause of action; malicious-prosecution/abuse-of-process elements not alleged; argument already raised as an affirmative defense so counterclaim unnecessary |
| Defamation | Move to dismiss: allegations are conclusory and fail to identify specific statements or their falsity | Plaintiffs made numerous false written statements publicly (social media) harming Huang | Dismissed — pleading lacks particularized identification of defamatory statements; conclusory recitals insufficient under Iqbal/Twombly |
| RICO | Move to dismiss: fails to plead an enterprise distinct from racketeering or the enterprise’s structure, membership, purpose, and mechanics | Plaintiffs formed a "well-orchestrated" plan and committed extortion/violent acts constituting racketeering to injure Huang | Dismissed — RICO enterprise not adequately alleged; no facts showing an association-in-fact separate from the alleged wrongdoing |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient to state a claim)
- Marbury Mgmt., Inc. v. Kohn, 629 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1980) (failure to identify legal theory may be excused if factual notice is adequate)
- Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 50 F. Supp. 3d 267 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (elements of malicious prosecution under New York law)
- PSI Metals, Inc. v. Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, 839 F.2d 42 (complaint/summons are not "process" for abuse-of-process claim)
- Palin v. N.Y. Times Co., 940 F.3d 804 (2d Cir. 2019) (elements and pleading particularity for defamation under New York law)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (definition of RICO enterprise requirement)
- First Cap. Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Satinwood, Inc., 385 F.3d 159 (enterprise must be distinct from the alleged racketeering activity)
- Williams v. Affinion Grp., LLC, 889 F.3d 116 (elements of a Section 1962 RICO claim)