Li v. The Chinese Nail Salon Ass'n of E. Am.

1

WEIDONG LI, Plaintiff, v. THE CHINESE NAIL SALON ASSOCIATION OF EAST AMERICA INC., JIAN YU a/k/a PETER YU, YINDI WEN a/k/a YIN DI WEN a/k/a/ WENDY WEN, JOHN DOE, and NICOLE DOE, Defendants.

No. 20-CV-6390 (KAM) (LB)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

February 28, 2024

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Weidong Li (“Li” or “Plaintiff”) commenced this action on December 31, 2020 against Defendants Jian Yu a/k/a Peter Yu (“Defendant Yu”), Yindi Wen a/k/a Yin Di Wen a/k/a Wendy Wen (“Defendant Wen”), John Doe, Nicole Doe (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and the Chinese Nail Salon Association of East America (the “Association”), which Plaintiff describes as a domestic, not-for-profit trade association comprised of Chinese nail salon owners and workers throughout the eastern region of the United States. See (ECF No. 1 original Complaint, “Compl.” ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants directed members of the Association, specifically nail salon owners, to refrain from employing Li because he had sued a number of nail salons in connection with alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C § 201 (the “FLSA”). See generally (Compl.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants' actions constitute retaliatory conduct in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), and corresponding New York law, N.Y.L.L. § 215(1)(a)(iii). (Id.)

Before the Court is Defendant Yu's and the Defendant Association's (the “Moving Defendants”) joint motion to dismiss Plaintiff's December 9, 2021 Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24, “SAC”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See generally (ECF Nos. 49-3, Motion to Dismiss, “Def. Mot.”; 51, “Def Reply”). Plaintiff opposes the Moving Defendants' joint motion to dismiss his claims. (ECF No. 50, “Ptf. Opp.”) For the reasons set forth below, the Moving Defendants' joint motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice, as against all Defendants.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

Between 2017 and 2020, Plaintiff filed four separate lawsuits in New York federal courts alleging that four different New York nail salons had engaged in unfair and abusive labor practices in violation of the FLSA and New York labor law.

(SAC ¶¶ 20-25.)^[1] According to Plaintiff, each of the first three civil actions resulted in a settlement and was not resolved on the merits. (SAC ¶ 21.) However, Li v. Spa Nail 9, Inc., No 19-cv-873 (TJM)(CFH), which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on June 30, 2019, is ongoing. (SAC ¶¶ 21, 25.)

Plaintiff alleges that on or about July 11, 2020, Li learned from his friend that a WeChat user with the user ID “Elena5250” and the username “Lanxin” shared a picture of Li accompanied by a caption warning that Li “professionally sues nail salon owners” (the “July 11, 2020 Post”), with a WeChat group entitled “Nail Salon Boss 4 Group, New York Intel Station” (the “Nail Salon Owners' WeChat Group”). (SAC ¶¶ 27, 29-30.) Plaintiff further alleges that on July 22, 2020, he learned from his friend that the July 11, 2020 Post had been reposted by the Defendant Association's official WeChat account (the “July 22, 2020 Repost”) in a separate WeChat group entitled “Hiring and Seeking Work, Eastern America” (the “Job Posting WeChat Group”). (SAC ¶ 35.) Plaintiff has named the unidentified WeChat user who is purportedly responsible for the July 22, 2020 Repost as a Defendant using the placeholder “John Doe” and alleges that John Doe authored the July 22, 2020 Repost “using the Association's WeChat account[.]” (SAC ¶ 14.) However, Plaintiff does not allege that either John Doe or any other defendant is responsible for the original July 11, 2020 Post. See (Ptf. Opp. at 5) (“defendants did not directly post the retaliatory information”).

The Nail Salon Owners' WeChat Group with which the July 11, 2020 Post was shared is comprised of nail salon owners, at least some of whom are alleged to be members of the Defendant Association. (SAC ¶ 27.) Although Plaintiff does not allege that the Nail Salon Owners' WeChat Group is owned, operated, or otherwise controlled by the Defendants, Plaintiff alleges that the Nail Salon Owners' WeChat Group is used by members of the Defendant Association to share information, including by posting to the Defendant Association's WeChat Moments^[2] page. (SAC ¶ 27.) Neither does Plaintiff allege that the Job Posting WeChat Group, to which the July 22, 2020 Repost was shared, is owned, operated, or otherwise controlled by the Defendants. Plaintiff also does not allege that the Defendant Association owns, operates, or otherwise controls the WeChat Moments page, although he alleges the WeChat Moments page “allows the Association to signal-boost content to its followers and members.” (SAC ¶ 28.) According to the Second Amended Complaint, members of the Job Posting WeChat Group typically use the WeChat Moments page to advise of job openings and to both solicit and discuss nail technician candidates. (SAC ¶¶ 35-39.)

Plaintiff does not explain how Defendant John Doe is associated with the Defendant Association, though Plaintiff speculates as to multiple possibilities in the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant John Doe used the Defendant Association's WeChat account to share the July 22, 2020 Repost. (SAC ¶ 14). Plaintiff also alleges that John Doe is Defendant Yu or, in the alternative, that John Doe is Defendant Wen. (SAC ¶¶ 12-14.) In yet another alternative assertion, Plaintiff alleges that if John Doe is neither Defendant Yu nor Defendant Wen, then John Doe was authorized to share the July 22, 2020 Repost using the Defendant Association's WeChat account by either or both Defendant Yu and Defendant Wen. (SAC ¶¶ 12-14.)

Plaintiff alleges that Nicole Doe “assisted in the blackballing of Plaintiff” by telling nail salon owners “not to engage with Plaintiff,” but does not elaborate on how or when Nicole Doe purportedly engaged in the alleged “blackballing” or how Nicole Doe is related to or affiliated with the Defendant Association's nail salon owner members. (SAC ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff alleges that a number of WeChat Group members responded to the July 11, 2020 Post and the July 22, 2020 Repost, including by reposting the July 11, 2020 Post. (SAC ¶¶ 37-38.) Subsequent engagement with the content of the July 11, 2020 Post also includes one user who responded that “[t]en out of ten people in the bosses' group gave [Li] negative reviews” (SAC ¶ 39), another user who stated that Li “is very unreasonable [and] wanted to sue our boss too” (SAC ¶ 40), and another user who stated that Li “is a pretty bad person.” (SAC ¶ 41.) Other users appeared to push back on the negative commentary cautioning that members of the WeChat groups should “not spread rumors” and should not “believe in rumors” unless they “have evidence” of the alleged conduct. (SAC ¶ 43.)

Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the July 11, 2020 Post, the July 22, 2020 Repost, and the subsequent discussion regarding his conduct and work history, he was working at a nail salon affiliated with the Defendant Association and located in Syracuse, New York (the “Syracuse Salon”). (SAC ¶ 26.) In this role, Plaintiff alleges that he earned approximately $1,200.00 per week, including salary and tips. (SAC ¶ 26.)

Plaintiff alleges that following the discussions stemming from the July 11, 2020 Post, on or about July 24, 2020, he was terminated from his role at the Syracuse Salon “because of the Association's blacklisting him.” (SAC ¶ 47.) Following the discontinuance of his employment in Syracuse, Plaintiff moved to Maryland where he worked at a nail salon that is not a member of the Defendant Association (the “Maryland Salon”), and earned approximately $706.54 per week, including salary and tips. (SAC ¶¶ 48-49.) Plaintiff alleges that he was “paid less [in Maryland] . . . than he was in Syracuse, because of th Association's blacklisting him” and that he was eventually terminated from his role at the Maryland Salon on or about December 12, 2020. (SAC ¶¶ 49-50.) Although Plaintiff attributes his termination to the logistical and economic challenges facing the Maryland Salon in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff alleges that his inability to find work at a nail salon thereafter can be attributed to the Defendant Association's “willful retaliation against him,” which Plaintiff notes also caused him to “lose self-esteem” and to experience both insomnia and general “mental anguish.” (SAC ¶¶ 50-52.)

II. Procedural Background

Plaintiff served the Defendant Association with the original Complaint and Summons on January 14, 2021. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint 32 days later, on February 15, 2021. (ECF No. 10.) In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff added Defendant Yu and Defendant Wen as individual Defendants.

On June 10, 2021 Plaintiff sought leave of the Court to file a Second Amended Complaint in order to add claims for emotional distress and punitive damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (ECF Nos. 15-17.) Plaintiff also sought to add the alternative names of Defendant Yu and Defendant Wen, and to add Nicole Doe and John Doe as individual Defendants. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint was granted by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom and Plaintiff proceeded to file the Second Amended Complaint on December 9, 2021.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Motion to Dismiss

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual...