Luo v. Panarium Kissena Inc.
1:15-cv-03642
| E.D.N.Y | Apr 6, 2021Background:
- Plaintiffs Jing Fang Luo and Shuang Qiu Huang sued multiple corporate and individual defendants doing business as Fay Da Bakery for violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Law, alleging wage shortfalls from meal deductions, unpaid training, and unreimbursed/uncompensated uniform laundering.
- Earlier in the litigation a magistrate judge conditionally certified an FLSA collective limited to employees at three Fay Da locations; many opt-in plaintiffs were later dismissed or sanctioned for discovery noncompliance, leaving eight plaintiffs.
- On March 13, 2020 plaintiffs moved under Rule 23 to certify a NYLL class covering employees at Fay Da locations in New York over the prior six years asserting common payroll and uniform/meal policies.
- Defendants opposed certification, arguing untimeliness and absence of common policies across locations; discovery had been completed nearly a year earlier.
- Magistrate Judge Tiscione issued an R&R recommending denial of class certification based on prejudicial untimeliness and failure to establish Rule 23(a) commonality and typicality given inconsistent affidavits and a lack of evidence of uniform policies across locations.
- District Judge William F. Kuntz II adopted the R&R, reviewing objections for clear error, and denied the Rule 23 class certification motion.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 23 motion | Motion was timely because plaintiffs needed extensive discovery and were awaiting summary judgment resolution before moving | Motion filed nearly five years after complaint and after discovery closed, causing prejudice | Motion untimely; court adopted R&R that delay was prejudicial and denied certification |
| Commonality and Typicality under Rule 23(a) | Common legal issues predominate: whether entities form a single enterprise and maintain a uniform unlawful meal-deduction policy | Record lacks proof of common policies across 15 NY locations; affidavits are inconsistent and raise individualized inquiries | Plaintiffs failed to show commonality/typicality; individualized inquiries would predominate; certification denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Reed Grp., Ltd., 955 F. Supp. 2d 201 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (objections must be specific and address portions of R&R to trigger de novo review)
- Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (perfunctory rehashing of prior arguments does not invoke de novo review)
- Vu v. Diversified Collection Servs., 293 F.R.D. 343 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (where alleged violations vary by location/position, individualized inquiries defeat commonality)