Williams v. TSU Global Services Inc., 1:18-cv-00072

Background

Defendants (TSU Global/Center City) moved for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3 of the Court’s prior summary-judgment order (ECF No. 66).
The prior order granted much of Defendants’ summary-judgment motion but denied it as to unpaid overtime claims under the FLSA and NYLL and held that plaintiffs were employees, not independent contractors.
Defendants’ reconsideration motion urged three purported factual misunderstandings: (1) plaintiffs possessed Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs); (2) plaintiffs misrepresented that Defendants operate a mixed fleet (large and small vehicles); and (3) plaintiffs must have worked other jobs because 1099s showed low earnings.
Defendants also cited FRCP 59(e), but the Court held Rule 59(e) inapplicable because no judgment was entered and governed the motion under Local Rule 6.3.
The Court denied reconsideration: Defendants failed to cite controlling authority or present new evidence, repeated arguments already considered, and advanced speculative or irrelevant points (CDLs irrelevant to the TCA/MCA analysis; fleet composition remains a genuine factual dispute; alleged other employment irrelevant to employee/contractor status).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper standard for reconsideration	Williams: apply strict Local Rule 6.3 standard; only overlooked controlling law/new evidence warrants relief	Defendants: sought relief (also invoked FRCP 59(e)) to revisit parts of summary-judgment ruling	Court: Local Rule 6.3 applies; FRCP 59(e) inapplicable; reconsideration denied for failure to meet standard
Relevance of CDLs to exemption/employee status	Williams: CDL possession irrelevant to TCA application and to employee/contractor analysis	Defendants: CDLs show drivers operated large, DOT-regulated vehicles and thus fall under MCA exemption	Court: CDL possession does not change prior analysis; CDL irrelevant to TCA/MCA overtime inquiry; issue not raised as contest to employee status so not considered
Fleet composition (large-only vs. mixed fleet)	Williams: drivers sometimes operated smaller vehicles—creates dispute whether TCA applies	Defendants: plaintiffs misrepresent vehicle types; affidavits assert only large vehicles were driven	Court: genuine issue of material fact remains about vehicle sizes; repeated arguments already considered; no basis to change prior ruling
Plaintiffs’ alleged additional employment (1099s)	Williams: Plaintiffs’ other work (if any) not dispositive of employee status	Defendants: 1099s show insufficient income from Defendants; plaintiffs must have had other jobs; this undermines control/employee status	Court: speculative and irrelevant; additional employment alone does not show independent contractor status; argument fails
Request for further discovery (tax/employment records)	Williams: discovery closed; prior opportunities existed	Defendants: belatedly seek tax/employment records to support claims	Court: denied — Defendants should have sought discovery during the discovery period; request untimely and largely irrelevant

Key Cases Cited

Corpac v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, 10 F. Supp. 3d 349 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (explaining Local Rule 6.3 reconsideration standard)
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (narrow standard for reconsideration)
Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) (grounds for reconsideration: intervening law, new evidence, or to prevent manifest injustice)
Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (motions for reconsideration not to relitigate issues)
Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (1989) (context for Rule 59(e) motions)
Hart v. Rick's Cabaret Intern., Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 901 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (additional employment does not necessarily show independent-contractor status)
Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 187 F.R.D. 148 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (application of Local Rule 6.3 standard)