Guan v. Lash Princess 56 Inc.

1

LILING GUAN, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LASH PRINCESS 56 INC. d/b/a LASH PRINCESS 56 d/b/a LASH PRINCESS; OSCAR LIN; and QINYU LIU a/k/a ULA LIU, Defendants.

No. 22 Civ. 2552 (KPF)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

February 27, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, DISTRICT JUDGE:

Plaintiff Liling Guan (“Plaintiff”) claims to have been employed as a lash technician by Defendants Lash Princess 56 Inc. (“Lash Princess”), Oscar Lin (“Lin”), and Qinyu Liu (“Liu,” and together with Lin, the “Individual Defendants,” and together with Lin and Lash Princess “Defendants”) for a period of nearly five months. During this period, Plaintiff contends that Defendants committed numerous violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, and the New York Labor Law (the “NYLL”), N.Y. Lab Law. Plaintiff further contends that following her employment with Defendants, the Individual Defendants shuttered Lash Princess to avoid liability and then opened a new corporate entity engaged in the same work. Now before the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (or “FAC”) and Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the FAC. For the reasons stated in the remainder of this Opinion, the Court denies Defendants' motion and grants Plaintiff's cross-motion.

BACKGROUND^[1]

A. Factual Background

1. Plaintiff's Employment with Defendants

Lash Princess is a New York corporation “engaged in the lash extension business” at its two locations in Manhattan and Flushing, Queens, New York. (FAC ¶ 10). Plaintiff avers that Lash Princess has between four and seven employees, and that it “is a business engaged in interstate commerce that has gross sales in excess of [f]ive [h]undred [t]housand [d]ollars ... per year.” (Id. ¶¶ 11-12). Further, Plaintiff alleges that Lash Princess “purchased and handled goods moved in interstate commerce,” and that it is an “enterprise engaged in commerce[.]” (Id. ¶¶ 13-14). Both Lin and Liu were founders, officers, and/or owners of Lash Princess. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16). Lin determined Lash Princess's employees' wages, maintained the relevant employment records, and had the ability to fire and hire employees. (Id. ¶ 19). Liu similarly had the ability to fire and hire employees, and in fact initially recruited and hired Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 20). Both Lin and Liu “participated in day-to-day management of Lash Princess in both Manhattan and Flushing[,]” and would occasionally ask employees at one location to staff the other. (Id. ¶ 21).

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a lash technician at Lash Princess's Manhattan location from April 29, 2021, to September 10, 2021. (FAC ¶ 8). In this role, Plaintiff provided lash extensions to customers. (Id. ¶ 36). On two separate occasions - once in early May 2021, and once on August 26, 2021 - Plaintiff worked for Defendants at Lash Princess's Flushing location. (Id. ¶ 9). Plaintiff claims that at all times she was employed by Defendants, she was a non-exempt employee under the relevant federal and state laws. (Id. ¶ 35).

2. Defendants' Employment Practices

From April 29, 2021, to May 31, 2021, Plaintiff worked five days a week for Defendants, either Wednesday through Sunday, or Thursday through Monday. (FAC ¶ 37). Plaintiff typically worked from 10:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., although during busy periods her workday sometimes stretched to 8:40 p.m. (Id.). Plaintiff did not receive an uninterrupted lunch break. (Id.). As such, Plaintiff worked approximately forty-seven-and-a-half to fifty hours per week during this period. (Id.).

From June 1, 2021, to September 10, 2021, Plaintiff worked six days a week, with Sundays off. (FAC ¶ 39). Her hours during this period were the same as the prior period, 10:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., but she sometimes worked until 8:40 p.m. during busy periods. (Id.). During this timeframe, Plaintiff worked fifty-seven to sixty hours per week. (Id.).

During the entirety of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, she was paid on a bi-weekly basis in cash. (FAC ¶ 41). Plaintiff's wages consisted of a “flat daily base salary and commissions,” the latter of which comprised ten percent of the service fees paid by returning customers who chose Plaintiff to do their lashes. (Id. ¶ 42). From April 29, 2021, to May 31, 2021, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any base salary. (Id. ¶ 43). From June 1, 2021, to July 31, 2021, Plaintiff received a base salary of $50 per day. (Id.). And from August 1, 2021, to September 10, 2021, Plaintiff received a base salary of $80 per day. (Id.). Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any commissions during her first two months of employment; beginning at the end of June 2021 through the end of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff received between $10 and $20 per day in commissions. (Id. ¶ 44). Plaintiff did receive tips from customers during her employment with Defendants; however, Defendants do not suggest that these tips were taken into account when determining her wages. (Id. ¶ 45).

Plaintiff claims that Defendants have still not paid her the base salary she is owed from September 2021 - a total of $640. (FAC ¶ 46). Nor did Defendants ever pay Plaintiff overtime premiums for her time worked over forty hours per week. (Id. ¶ 48). Likewise, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff “spread of hours premiums” for days when she worked more than ten hours, and did not provide her with a written wage notice in Chinese (Plaintiff's primary language) when she began her employment. (Id. ¶¶ 49-50). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not provide her with a correct wage statement every time she was paid. (Id. ¶ 51).

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a complaint on March 29, 2022. (Dkt. #1). After the parties entered into a stipulation extending Defendants' time to respond to the complaint (Dkt. #8), Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 2, 2022 (Dkt. #9). However, because Defendants failed to comply with this Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, which rules require that parties submit a pre-motion letter before filing a motion to dismiss, the Court deemed the motion “premature.” (Dkt. #10). Still, the Court found that “there may be some merit to the arguments made” in Defendants' motion, and thus directed Plaintiff to file a letter stating whether she wished to amend the complaint to address any issues. (Id.). On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff requested an additional fourteen days to oppose Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Dkt. #15). The Court granted Plaintiff's request, and again noted that if Plaintiff were to file an amended complaint, the Court would deny Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. (Dkt. #16). Plaintiff opted to file an amended complaint, and filed the FAC on June 29, 2022. (Dkt. #21).

Following the filing of the FAC, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot, and directed Defendants to indicate whether they wished to move to dismiss the FAC or to otherwise answer it by July 15, 2022. (Dkt. #22). In line with the Court's directive, Defendants filed a letter on July 15, 2022, noting that they intended to move to dismiss the FAC and requesting a briefing schedule. (Dkt. #23). The Court then entered a briefing schedule for Defendants' motion. (Dkt. #24).

On August 15, 2022, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the FAC and supporting papers. (Dkt. #25-26). On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (the “SAC”) to add Lash Moment Studio as a new defendant to this case, on the proffered basis that the new entity was a “substantial continuity” of Lash Princess. (Dkt. #27).^[2] Plaintiff filed a combined memorandum of law in support of its crossmotion and in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss the FAC, as well as a declaration with exhibits that included Plaintiff's proposed SAC. (Dkt. #28-29). On September 23, 2022, Defendants filed a letter request for an extension of time to file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss, and to oppose Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend. (Dkt. #30). On September 26, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' request. (Dkt. #31).

On October 17, 2022, Defendants filed a combined opposition to Plaintiff's cross-motion and reply in support of their motion to dismiss, as well as a supporting declaration and exhibit. (Dkt. #32). Three days later, on October 20, 2022, Plaintiff requested an additional three weeks to file a reply in support of her cross-motion, and noted that the parties were exploring a settlement. (Dkt. #33). The Court granted Plaintiff's request, and directed Plaintiff to file her reply by November 10, 2022, if the parties had not reached a settlement. (Dkt. #34). Plaintiff then filed her reply and supporting papers on November 10, 2022. (Dkt. #35-36).

DISCUSSION

A. The Interaction Between Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to Amend and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

“Where plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending, a court ‘has a variety of ways in which it may deal with the pending motion to dismiss, from denying the motion as moot to considering the merits of the motion in light of the amended complaint.'” Haag v. MVP Health Care, 866 F.Supp.2d 137, 140 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Roller Bearing Co. of Am., Inc v. Am. Software, Inc., 570 F.Supp.2d 376, 384 (D. Conn. 2008)). Where, as here, “the primary claims remain the same” between the proposed amended complaint and the complaint which a defendant has moved to dismiss, the Court may consider “the merits of the motion to dismiss in light of the proposed amended complaint.” Doe v. N.Y.S. Off. of Child. & Fam. Servs., No. 20 Civ. 1195 (BKS) (CF...