Zaldivar v. Anna Bella's Cafe, LLC
2:11-cv-01198
E.D.N.YFeb 28, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Zaldivar filed March 14, 2011 against Anna Bella’s Café, LLC and Anna Bella Franco and Michael Franco seeking unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the FLSA and NYLL and a spread-of-hours premium.
- Plaintiff alleges he worked as a cook’s helper at the Café in Great Neck, NY from about October 3, 2009 to June 3, 2010, averaging ~72 hours per week and earning $300 weekly (about $4.17 per hour).
- Plaintiff contends Franco individuals managed the Corporation, owned it, controlled hiring/firing, supervised schedules and pay, and maintained employment records; Plaintiff asserts the Corporation engaged in commerce with annual revenues over $500,000.
- Plaintiff asserts Defendants failed to pay minimum wage, overtime (1.5x for hours over 40 per week), and a spread-of-hours premium for days exceeding ten hours.
- Defendants moved to dismiss May 5, 2011 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim; alternatively, they sought to convert to summary judgment and dismiss the case if FLSA claim failed.
- The court granted in part, denied in part, and reserved judgment, ordering supplemental briefing on enterprise coverage and prohibiting sanctions-related motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does plaintiff adequately plead enterprise coverage under the FLSA? | Zaldivar pleads managerial control and >$500,000 revenue to establish enterprise coverage. | Corporation lacks employees engaged in commerce and revenue threshold; no enterprise coverage pleaded with specifics. | Jurisdiction not defeated; enterprise-coverage pleading is an element to prove, not a jurisdictional bar. |
| Should the court convert the 12(b)(6) motion to a partial summary judgment on enterprise coverage? | Plaintiff could anticipate resolution on enterprise coverage with evidence. | Court should decide enterprise-coverage merits with admissible evidence via summary judgment. | Court converts to partial summary judgment on the sole issue of enterprise coverage and allows supplemental briefing. |
| What briefing and timing should govern supplemental evidence on enterprise coverage? | Plaintiff should be allowed to submit detailed evidence addressing commerce and revenue thresholds. | Defendants may respond and attach supporting documents; discovery closed, but briefing can proceed. | Court sets page limits and deadlines for supplemental opposition and reply; reserves judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard for determining lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; permissibility of outside-materials)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (jurisdictional questions may rely on outside materials; presumption of true factual allegations)
- Atlanta Mut. Ins. Co. v. Balfour Maclaine Int’l Ltd., 968 F.2d 196 (2d Cir. 1998) (standard for resolving jurisdiction and pleading in context of 12(b)(1) motions)
- Shipping Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Drakos, 140 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 1998) (clarifies evidence considerations in jurisdictional challenges and summary-judgment conversion)
- Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 152 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1998) (pleading standards and use of outside materials in 12(b)(6) context)
- Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (integration of documents referenced in complaint for 12(b)(6) consideration)
- Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1991) (role of attached and incorporated materials in evaluating motions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (threadbare recitals of the elements insufficient; plausibility standard)