704 F.Supp.3d 408
S.D.N.Y.2023Background:
- Plaintiffs Kaiyun Liang and Xiaohao Fang sued Hutaoli Music Restaurant & Bar and its owners under the FLSA, NYLL, the NY WTPA, and NYCRR, alleging unpaid/late wages and defective wage notices/statements.
- Complaint filed June 9, 2022; case referred to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger for pretrial supervision.
- Defendants moved to dismiss three NYLL-based claims: late payment of wages (NYLL §191); failure to provide wage notices (NYLL §195(1)(a)); failure to provide wage statements (NYLL §195(3)).
- Magistrate Judge Lehrburger issued an R&R (Nov. 14, 2023) recommending denial of dismissal as to the NYLL §191 late-payment claim, and dismissal (with leave to amend) of the §195 notice and statement claims for lack of alleged injury in fact.
- Neither party objected to the R&R; the district court reviewed for clear error, found none, adopted the R&R in full, and ordered that any amendment to the §195 claims be filed by December 11, 2023 alleging an injury in fact.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NYLL §191 (late wages) supports a private right and standing | Plaintiffs allege late payments and seek statutory remedies under §191 | Defendants argue plaintiffs lack standing and fail to state a claim | Court: §191 claim survives; plaintiffs alleged concrete injury; R&R denied dismissal (followed Vega) |
| Whether failure to provide wage notices (NYLL §195(1)(a)) gives Article III standing | Statutory violation alone suffices | Statutory violation without real-world injury is insufficient | Court: Plaintiffs pled only statutory violation, not injury in fact; dismiss with leave to amend to plead injury |
| Whether failure to provide wage statements (NYLL §195(3)) gives Article III standing | Statutory violation alone suffices | Statutory violation without real-world injury is insufficient | Court: Same as notice claim; dismiss with leave to amend to plead injury |
| Effect of no objections to the R&R | Not applicable | Failure to object waives de novo review | Court: Parties waived objections; court reviewed for clear error, found none, and adopted the R&R |
Key Cases Cited
- Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Mgmt. LLC, 175 A.D.3d 1144 (1st Dept. 2019) (treats NYLL §191 as creating enforceable employee remedy and forms basis for standing analysis)
- DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2000) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge's R&R generally waives judicial review)
- Small v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (same principle regarding waiver from failure to object)
- McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1983) (timely objection to a magistrate's recommended decision required to preserve right to further review)
- Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (district court may accept unobjected-to R&R if no clear error is evident)