Nieto v. Village Red Restaurant Corp.
1:17-cv-02037
S.D.N.Y.Oct 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Nieto worked at Village Red Restaurant; defendants are Village Red, 135 Waverly Realty LLC (Waverly Realty), and Christine Serafis (owner/officer).
- Earlier case Garcia granted partial summary judgment that Serafis was not the Garcias’ employer; defendants argue that decision precludes Nieto’s claims against Serafis.
- Nieto alleges Waverly Realty required him to perform building-cleaning tasks on certain days and that Waverly and Village Red operated as a single or joint employer.
- Nieto alleges Serafis is sole shareholder/president, signed his paychecks and employment/income letters, hired the restaurant manager, receives a salary, and exercised hiring/firing and wage-setting authority.
- Court considers res judicata/nonparty preclusion arguments and whether pleadings plausibly allege employer status under the FLSA/NYLL using the economic-reality test and Carter factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata / claim preclusion | Garcia decision already determined Serafis is not an employer; bars relitigation | Garcia partial summary judgment should preclude Nieto’s identical claim | Denied — Garcia was not a final Rule 54(b) judgment; nonparty preclusion not shown |
| Nonparty preclusion exceptions | Same counsel and workplace mean Nieto bound by Garcia | Garcia’s decision should bind similar claims | Denied — no applicable exception (e.g., adequate representation, privity) |
| Waverly Realty as employer or single integrated enterprise | Waverly jointly employed Nieto; performed work for Waverly | Waverly lacked operational control over employment | Denied — pleadings too conclusory; no factual allegations of hiring, firing, pay-setting, schedule control, or integration |
| Serafis individual liability as employer | Serafis exercised operational control (signed paychecks, authored employment letters, hired manager) | Prior Garcia finding and lack of individual operational control defeat claim | Granted in part for dismissal motion? No — Court finds allegations (thin) sufficient to plausibly state claim against Serafis at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Hecht v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 691 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2012) (elements for res judicata/claim preclusion)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely conceivable)
- Barfield v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (broad FLSA employer definition; economic-reality test)
- Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, 722 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (individual operational control required for individual FLSA liability)
- Carter v. Dutchess Community College, 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1984) (factors: hire/fire, supervision, pay methods, employment records)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (nonparty preclusion exceptions and limits)
- Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC, 425 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2005) (single integrated enterprise / single employer framework)