Guan Ming Lin v. Benihana Nat'l Corp.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132872
| S.D.N.Y. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs allege FLSA/NYLL violations by Haru restaurants and move for collective certification, notice, and employee data.
- Magistrate Judge Francis recommended denial of certification with prejudice to renew after discovery and grant of contact-information production.
- Court adopts the Magistrate’s Report in full, denying certification but granting three-year contact information production.
- Factual record includes different base pay across drivers, non-reimbursement for uniforms and tools, and tip reporting concerns.
- Court concludes no cohesive common policy established for certification; discovery may still yield evidence for renewal if warranted.
- Order: certification denied without prejudice, and production of contact information for past three years granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs meet the 'similarly situated' standard for collective action certification. | Lin, Li, and Li contends they share a common policy of wage violations. | Haru argues insufficient nexus to other employees and lack of a common policy. | Denied without prejudice. |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to certification for unpaid overtime claims. | Qi Li asserts multiple employees lacked overtime pay. | Plaintiffs show no sufficient nexus to others' overtime practices. | Denied. |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to collective certification for tools-of-the-trade/uniform reimbursement claims. | Claims of unreimbursed uniform and vehicle-related expenses across drivers. | Evidence too conclusory; costs variably impact wages and uniforms may not be uniform. | Denied. |
| Whether the court should authorize notice and production of employee contact information. | Pre-certification notice and full contact data facilitate later certification. | SSNs/privacy concerns; broad production unnecessary at this stage. | Granted: produce names, last-known addresses, and telephone numbers for past three years; SSNs denied at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iglesias-Mendoza v. LaBelle Farm, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (establishes modest requirement for similarly situated inquiry in FLSA actions)
- Realite v. Ark Restaurants Corp., 7 F.Supp.2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (discusses factual nexus for collective actions)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (recognizes broad remedial purpose and court involvement in notice/discovery)
- Yu G. Ke v. Saigon Grill, Inc., 595 F.Supp.2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (tools-of-the-trade and wage deduction considerations)