1

09-4890-cv Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co.



### UNITE D STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



## SUM MARY ORDER

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT

. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER J

ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S LOCAL R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDI X OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL

.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 10 day of August, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X LING NAN ZHENG, REN ZHU YANG, YUN 13 14 ZHEN HUANG, WEN QIN LIN, SAI BING 15 WANG, YE BIAO YANG, RONG YUN ZHENG, 16 HUI FANG LIN, XIU YING ZHENG, JIN 17 PING LIN, HUI MING DONG, YU BING LUO, 18 SAU CHI KWOK, SAI XIAN TANG, YI ZHEN 19 LIN, RUI FANG ZHANG, MEI JUAN YU, MEI 20 YING LI, QIN FANG QIU, YI MEI LIN, 21 MEI ZHU DONG, FUNG LAM, XIU ZHU YE, 22 SING KEI LAM, XUE JIN LIN, 23 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 24 25 26 CUI ZHEN LIN, 27 28 Plaintiff,2 1 2 -v.- 09-4890-cv 3 4 LIBERTY APPAREL COMPANY, INC., ALBERT 5 NIGRI, HAGAI LANIADO, 6 7 Defendants-Cross-Claimants 8 -Appellants, 9 10 NGON FONG YUEN, 88 FASHION INC., TOP 11 FIVE SPORTSWEAR, INC., S.P.R. 12 SPORTSWEAR, INC., 91 FASHION INC., 13 14 Defendants, 15 16 LAI HUEN YAM, also known as Steven 17 Yam, 998 FASHIONS INC., 103 FASHION 18 INC., 19 20 Defendants-Cross-Defendants. 21 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 23 FOR APPELLANT: VANO I. HAROUTUNIAN (Will 24 25 Levins, on the brief), Ballon 26 Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., New 27 York, New York. 28 29 FOR APPELLEES: JAMES REIF (Anna Roberts on the 30 brief), Gladstein, Reif & 31 Meginniss, LLP, New York, New 32 York. 33 34 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 35 Court for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J.). 36 37 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 38 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 39 AFFIRMED IN PART and VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

. 40 41 Plaintiffs are a group of 25 Chinese garment workers 42 in New York City’s Chinatown. In 1999, they sued Liberty 43 Apparel Company and its two principals (collectively, “the 44 defendants”), and others, for violations of the Fair Labor 45 Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., New York state3 1 analogs, and New York Labor Law § 345-a(1). Ultimately, a 2 jury found Liberty Apparel and Albert Nigri liable on the 3 FLSA and New York state analog claims, and all three 4 defendants liable on the § 345-a(1) claim; following 5 resolution of various post-trial motions, the district court 6 entered judgment accordingly. 7 8 The defendants now appeal that judgment. They argue 9 principally that the di str ictco urtimpro per ly all owe d t he 10 jur y t o d ete rmi ne whe the r L ibe rtywa s p lai nti ffs ’ j oin t 11 emp loy er, wh ere as ins tea d t he cou rt its elfsh oul d h ave 12 res olv ed tha t i ssu e. We ad dre ss thi s i ssu e i n ase par ate 13 opi nio n f ile d c ont emp ora neo usl y w ithth is summar y o rde r. 14 15 The de fen dan ts als o a rgu e t hat : ( 1) the di str ictco urt , 16 hav ingpr evi ous ly con clu dedth at thr ee of the fa cto rs 17 inv olv ed in thejo intemplo yme nt inquir y f avo redth e 18 def end ant s a s ama tte r o f l aw, impro per ly ref use d t o c har ge 19 the ju ry acc ord ing ly; (2 ) t he jur y’s ve rdi ct was no t 20 sup por tedbysu ffi cie nt evi den ce; an d ( 3) NewYo rk Lab or Law 21 § 3 45- a(1 ) d oes no t a llo w apr iva te rig ht of act ion

. 22 23 [1] In den yin g s ummaryju dgmentonre man d, the di str ict 24 cou rt hel d t hatas toth ree ofth e r ele van t f act ors th ere 25 was noge nui ne dis put e o f f act , a nd tha t e achfa vor ed the 26 def end ant s a s ama tte r o f l aw. T he def end ant s a rgu e t hat 27 the co urter redinfa ili ng to ins tru ct the ju ry acc ord ing ly. 28 29 Eve n a ssumin g t hatth e d ist ric t c our t e rre d i n t his 30 reg ard , v aca turis un war ran ted

. An imp rop er jur y 31 ins tru cti on doe s n ot requir e ane w t ria l i f t he err or was 32 harmle ss. S ee 28 U.S .C. § 211 1; Fed . R . C iv. P. 61 ; G ord on 33 v. N.Y . C ityBd . o f E duc ., 232 F. 3d 111 , 1 16 (2dCi r. 200 0). 34 “Aner roris ha rml ess on ly if the co urtis co nvi nce d t hat 35 the er rordi d n ot inf lue nce th e j ury ’s ver dic t.” G ord on, 36 232 F. 3d at 116

. But“h arm les s e rro r a nal ysi s d oes no t 37 requir e a bso lut e c ert ain ty wit h r esp ecttowh at eff ectth e 38 err or hadup on theve rdi ct. ” Bru nea u e x r el Sch ofi eldv. S. 39 Kor tri ghtCe nt. Sc hoo l D ist ., 163 F. 3d 749 , 7 60 (2dCi r. 40 199 8). “ [W] henwear e a ble toco ncl ude th at the ve rdi ct was 41 notsu bst ant ial ly inf lue nce d b y t he all ege d e rro r, the n w e 42 maybe qu iteco nfi den t t he obj ect ingpa rty ’s rig hts we re not 43 pre jud ice d a nd mayup hol d t he gen era l v erd ict .” Id

. 44 45 Her e, anyer rorwo uldbe ha rmf ul onl y i f t her e w as a 46 rea son abl e c han ce tha t t he jur y c oul d h ave de eme d a ny or all 47 of fac tor s o ne, tw o, andfo ur to fav or pla int iff s. Onth is4 1 rec ord , t hatis impla usi ble

. The de fen dan ts adm it tha t t he 2 pla int iff s c onc ede d a ll thr ee fac tor s a t t ria l, andth e 3 cou rt’ s c har ge- -wh ichwe pr esume the ju ry fol low ed, Un ite d 4 Sta tes v. Sa lameh, 15 2 F .3d88 , 1 16 (2dCi r. 199 8)- -en sur ed 5 tha t n o i mpr ope r c ons ide rat ion s i nfe cte d t he jur y’s we igh ing 6 of the se fac tor s. 7 8 [2] The de fen dan ts arg ue, as th ey didbywa y o f a n 9 uns ucc ess ful Ru le 50 mot ioninth e d ist ric t c our t, tha t t he 10 jur y’s ve rdi ct was no t s upp ort ed by leg all y s uff ici ent 11 evi den ce. W e w ill re ver se onl y i f, con sid eri ng the ev ide nce 12 in the li ghtmo st fav ora ble toth e p lai nti ffs an d d raw ing 13 all re aso nab le inf ere nce s i n t hei r f avo r, the re was “s ucha 14 comple te abs enc e o f e vid enc e s upp ort ingth e v erd ictth at the 15 jur y’s fi ndi ngs co uldon ly hav e b eenth e r esu lt of she er 16 surmis e a nd con jec tur e, or the re is suc h a n o ver whe lmi ng 17 amo untofev ide nceinfa vorof[t he def end ant s] tha t 18 rea son abl e a nd fai r m ind ed jur ors co uldno t a rri ve at a 19 ver dic t a gai nst[t he def end ant s]. ” Nimelyv. Ci ty of N.Y ., 20 414 F. 3d 381 , 3 90 (2dCi r. 200 5) (in ter nal qu ota tio n m ark s 21 andbr ack ets om itt ed)

. 22 23 Forla rge ly the same rea son s s tat ed by Jud ge Sul liv an 24 in his or al dec isi on, we co ncl ude th at the re was a leg all y 25 suf fic ien t b asi s f or the ve rdi ct. Are aso nab le jur y c oul d 26 hav e f oun d t hatth reeofth e r ele van t f act ors fa vor ed 27 pla int iff s. Fi rst , t he def end ant s d o n ot dis put e t hata 28 rea son abl e j uryco uldha ve fou nd tha t p lai nti ffs “p erf ormed 29 a d isc ret e l ine -jo b t hatwa s i nte gra l t o L ibe rty ’s pro ces s 30 of pro duc tio n.” Z hen g v . L ibe rtyAp par el Co. , 3 55 F.3 d 6 1, 31 72 (2dCi r. 200 3) (se tti ng for th the re lev antfa cto rs)

. 32 Sec ond , are aso nab le jur y c oul d h ave co ncl ude d t hatth e 33 deg ree towh ichLi ber ty App are l a nd its pr inc ipa ls and 34 age nts su per vis ed pla int iff s’ wor k w eig hedinfa vorof 35 pla int iff s g ive n t hei r t est imo ny tha t r epr ese nta tiv es of 36 Lib ert y Appa rel su per vis ed pla int iff s’ wor k a n a ver age of 37 thr ee to fou r t ime s p er wee k f or hou rs at a t ime an d s pok e 38 dir ect ly to pla int iff s, on at lea st one oc cas iondi rec tin g 39 wor ker s t o s topwo rk on ano the r m anu fac tur er’ s g arment s i n 40 ord er to beg in wor k o n L ibe rty ’s. T hir d, a j uryco uldha ve 41 rea son abl y c onc lud ed tha t p lai nti ffs wo rke d p red omi nan tly 42 forth e d efe nda nts , g ive n p lai nti ffs ’ t est imo ny tha t 7 0 t o 43 80 per cen t o f t hei r w orkwa s p erf ormed forLi ber ty. 44 45 Fin all y, the ju ry cou ld inf er tha t t he def end ant s k new 46 howmu ch time i t w oul d t ake todoth e w orkYam c ont rac tedto5 1 do, an d t hatYam w oul d n ot paypl ain tif fs mor e t hanhe wa s 2 pai d b y L ibe rty

. 3 4 Thu s, the re was le gal ly suf fic ien t e vid enc e f or the 5 jur y’s co ncl usi on tha t t he def end ant s e xer cis ed “fu nct ion al 6 con tro l” ove r p lai nti ffs

. 7 8 [3] The de fen dan ts arg ue tha t N ew Yor k L abo r L aw § 3 45- a(1 ) 9 pro vid es no pri vat e r igh t o f a cti on. A t o ral ar gument , t he 10 pan el rai sedth e p ros pec t o f c ert ify ingth is imp ort ant 11 que sti on to theNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls. P lai nti ffs ’ 12 cou nse l d eci ded(i n o ur vie w, sen sib ly) toab and on the 13 § 3 45- a(1 ) c lai m r ath er tha n p rol ongfu rth er thi s e lev en14 yea r-o ld lit iga tio n. We th ere for e c ons ide r t his cl aim 15 aba ndo ned , a nd we vac ate th e §34 5-a (1) po rti on of the 16 dis tri ct cou rt’ s j udgmen t a nd rem andfo r t he dis tri ct cou rt 17 to dis mis s t hatcl aiman d r e-c alc ula te the damag es 18 acc ord ing ly. 19 20 Finding no merit in the Liberty Defendants’ remaining 21 arguments, we hereby AFFIRM IN PART and VACATE AND REMAND IN 22 PART the judgment of the district court. The mandate shall 23 issue forthwith. 24 25 26 FOR THE COURT: 27 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 28