Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Group, Inc.
659 F.3d 234
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Shahriar, Islam, and Harvey filed suit on behalf of themselves and others against Park Avenue Restaurant entities for tip-pooling practices under FLSA and NYLL.
- Defendants allegedly required servers to share tips with non-tipped employees (expediters, dishwashers, silver polishers, coffee makers) and a manager.
- Plaintiffs also alleged spread-of-hours violations under New York law.
- FLSA claims were pursued as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); NYLL claims were pursued as a Rule 23 class action in district court.
- District Court granted class certification for the NYLL claims on January 28, 2010, and the parties sought appellate review under Rule 23(f).
- This Court affirmed the District Court’s order certifying the NYLL class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over NYLL claims. | Shahriar argues NYLL claims arise from same facts as FLSA and should be heard in federal court. | Park Avenue contends §1367(c) permits declining jurisdiction due to conflicts between opt-in and opt-out schemes. | Yes; proper under §1367(a) with no §1367(c) dispositive conflict. |
| Whether the NYLL class claims meet Rule 23 requirements. | Plaintiffs show common tipping practices and uniform impact on class. | Park Avenue argues lack of commonality and predominance due to variations in damages. | Yes; all requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and predominance) satisfied. |
| Whether district court adequately analyzed Rule 23 requirements before certifying. | Court properly considered evidence at certification stage. | Court failed to make explicit findings for each Rule 23 prong. | Court did not abuse discretion; findings read in context support certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (opt-in versus opt-out considerations in wage actions discussed)
- Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 140 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 1998) (supplemental jurisdiction and related doctrine guidance)
- De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2003) (state-law claims may raise novel/complex issues affecting supplemental jurisdiction)
- Ervin v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc., 632 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2011) (supports supplemental jurisdiction over state-law class claims in FLSA actions)
- Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 623 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2010) (predominance and efficiency in dual-actions analysis)
- Lindsay v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 448 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (opt-in/opt-out interplay with supplemental jurisdiction)
- In re IPO Secs. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for evaluating class-certification decisions under Rule 23)