NOT FOR PUBLICATION (Doc. No. 56) 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

CAMDEN VICINAGE

___________________________________ 

 : 

CHENG KENG LIN, et al., : 

 : 

 Plaintiffs, : Civil No. 10-4059 (RBK/KMW) 

 : 

 v. : OPINION

 : 

TENG LIN, et al., : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

___________________________________ : 

KUGLER, United States District Judge: 

 In this case, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated New Jersey law and the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., by failing to pay proper minimum wages and by failing 

to pay overtime wages. Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

in which Defendants argue that Plaintiffs were paid properly and that this lawsuit is nothing 

more than the product of machinations of one disgruntled employee.1 (Doc. No. 56.) For the 

reasons stated herein, the Court will DENY Defendants’ motion. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Defendants are owners and operators of Mikado, a sushi restaurant with locations in 

Cherry Hill, Marlton, and Maple Shade, New Jersey. Plaintiffs are former employees of 

Defendants and were employed as Kitchen Chefs, Sushi Chefs, Hibachi Chefs, Cashiers, and 

Waitresses. (Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts (“Pls.’ SSOF”) ¶ 1 

(Doc. No. 59).) 

 

1

 Defendants state in their moving papers that they are not moving for summary judgment against Plaintiffs Jing 

Chen, Chuan Qiang Wang, and Guang Xing Chen. Accordingly, the Court will not evaluate the claims of those 

Plaintiffs any further. 
2 

On August 5, 2010, Plaintiffs brought suit alleging that Defendants violated federal and 

state wage and hour laws by paying Plaintiffs far less than minimum wage and overworking 

Plaintiffs without paying overtime premiums. (Doc. No. 1.) On September 17, 2010, 

Defendants answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (Doc. No. 4.) At the conclusion of discovery, 

Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on April 15, 2013. (Doc. No. 56.) As this 

motion has been fully briefed, the Court now turns to the parties’ arguments. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Summary judgment is appropriate where the Court is satisfied that “there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). A genuine dispute 

of material fact exists only if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When the Court 

weighs the evidence presented by the parties, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be 

believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. 

 The burden of establishing the nonexistence of a “genuine issue” is on the party moving 

for summary judgment. Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1080 (3d Cir. 

1996). The moving party may satisfy its burden either by “produc[ing] evidence showing the 

absence of a genuine issue of material fact” or by ‘showing’ – that is, pointing out to the district 

court – that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 

477 U.S. at 325. 

 If the party seeking summary judgment makes this showing, it is left to the nonmoving 

party to “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material 

facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, to 
3 

survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party must “make a showing sufficient to establish 

the existence of [every] element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear 

the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Furthermore, “[w]hen opposing 

summary judgment, the nonmovant may not rest upon mere allegations, but rather must ‘identify 

those facts of record which would contradict the facts identified by the movant.’” Corliss v. 

Varner, 247 F. App’x. 353, 354 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J. v. Affiliated 

FM Ins. Co., 311 F.3d 226, 233 (3d Cir. 2002)). 

 In deciding the merits of a party’s motion for summary judgment, the Court’s role is not 

to evaluate the evidence and decide the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a 

genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Credibility determinations are the province 

of the fact finder, not the district court. BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 

1363 (3d Cir. 1992). 

III. DISCUSSION 

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs argue that the majority of exhibits submitted by Defendants 

in support of their motion are inadmissible and cannot be considered by the Court. (Pls.’ Opp’n 

Br. 6-9 (Doc. No. 58).) Defendants counter that Plaintiffs’ arguments are nothing more than an 

effort to create a “dust storm” and that their evidence is, in fact, sufficient. (Defs.’ Reply Br. 2 

(Doc. No. 60).) 

To be considered as evidence in a motion for summary judgment, documents must be 

properly authenticated in satisfaction of Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a). Shanklin v. 

Fitzgerald, 397 F.3d 596, 602 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court’s exclusion of 

unauthenticated and inadmissible exhibits on motion for summary judgment); Orr v. Bank of 

America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) (same). Documents can be authenticated 
4 

by an affidavit of an individual with personal knowledge able to provide evidence “sufficient to 

support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Orr, 285 F.3d at 773 

(quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)). However, the failure to establish that the document is genuine 

renders the evidence inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). 

In support of their motion for summary judgment and to establish that Plaintiffs were 

properly paid in accordance with state and federal law, Defendants submitted hundreds of pages 

of exhibits that include various spreadsheets, printed out “tip reports”, employee expense 

worksheets, and handwritten notes that are not only illegible at times, but partly in Chinese.2

Defendants do not submit any affidavit establishing the genuineness of these documents, or 

indicating that the documents are true, complete, or correct copies. Instead, Defendants 

superficially identify certain of these documents in their Local Rule 56.1 Statement by stating, 

e.g., “Mikado keeps contemporaneous records for each of its employees, regardless of the 

method by which they are paid. See Wage Records attached for each employee at Exhibits A 

through N.” (Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute (“Defs.’ SMF”) ¶ 15 

(emphasis added) (Doc. No. 56-1).) Defendants’ argument in their Reply Brief that certain of the 

Defendants and Plaintiffs testified about these documents in their depositions does not relieve 

them of their burden to properly authenticate this evidence so that it may be considered by the 

Court in ruling on the instant motion. 

Even if all of Defendants’ evidence was admissible, however, Plaintiffs have raised 

genuine issues of material fact for trial, such that summary judgment would be improper in any 

event. 

 

2

 Defendants’ exhibits containing excerpts from Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony and declarations prepared by 

Defendants and their employees are not challenged by Plaintiffs and are admissible. 
5 

Defendants have submitted a declaration from Rowena Yim, an accountant for Mikado 

Restaurant, stating that she, on Mikado’s instructions, “calculate[d] the correct minimum wage 

and overtime for employees working the standard hours at Mikado,” “calculated the correct pay, 

including overtime for its employees,” and “based these calculations with reference to both state 

and federal laws on the minimum wage and overtime rates.” (Declaration of Rowena Yim, Ex. 

R ¶¶ 9-10 (Doc. No. 56-35).) Ms. Yim concludes that “[b]ased upon my knowledge of Mikado’s 

pay practices, I believe that all employees have been properly paid according to the advice I have 

provided to Mikado which is based on the payroll record presented to me by Mikado.” (Id. ¶ 

12.) Defendants further state that “Plaintiffs were paid at a premium rate for all overtime hours” 

and that “[e]ach Plaintiff was paid more than minimum wage and overtime.” (Defendants’ 

Counterstatement to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Statement of Facts (“Defs.’ Counterstatement”) ¶¶ 

7, 16 (Doc. No. 60-6).) 

In support of their case, Plaintiffs have submitted declarations and responses to 

Defendants’ interrogatories stating, among other things, that each Plaintiff was paid a certain 

monthly salary, that salary did not change based on the number of hours worked, Plaintiffs 

worked anywhere from 65-70 hours per week on average, and Plaintiffs never received overtime 

pay for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week. (See Plaintiff Zhen Zi Jin3 and Plaintiff Xue 

Tian Xin’s Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, Ex. 64; Declaration of David 

 

3

 Defendants also contend that there is no record of Zhen Zi Jin having worked at Mikado. (Defs.’ Counterstatement 

¶ 1.) Because Plaintiffs submit deposition testimony from Mr. Jin stating that he did in fact work at Mikado, (see 

Declaration of David Stein, attaching Ex. AA (Deposition of Zhen Zi Jin)), this represents another factual dispute 

that is inappropriate for the Court to resolve at this stage of the proceedings. 

4

 Plaintiffs Zhen Zi Jin and Xue Tian Xin state: “Plaintiff worked from October 2008 to October 2009. He was paid 

a flat rate of $1,300 per month or $325 per week and he worked 68.5 hours per week giving me a hourly wage of 

$4.74. From October 2008 to October 2009, Plaintiff worked 68.5 hours per week. I was never paid overtime. He 

worked 28.5 hours of overtime during my employment with Mikado.” (Plaintiff Zhen Zi Jin and Plaintiff Xue Tian 

Xin’s Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, Ex. 6 ¶¶ 18-19.) 
6 

Stein, Ex. 8 (attaching Exs. A-L (Declaration of Cheng Keng Lin ¶¶ 9,13,17; Declaration of 

Fang Wang ¶ 15; Declaration of Wei Ye She ¶¶ 11, 13, 16, 18; Declaration of Zhong Wu Zhu 9, 

13-14; Declaration of Dong Mei Pan ¶¶ 10, 14; Declaration of Dong Xiao Jing ¶¶ 10, 16; 

Declaration of Dong Xiao Wei ¶¶ 10, 14, 19; Declaration of Hong Chen ¶¶ 11, 15; Declaration 

of Jin Xing Gao ¶¶ 9,11; Declaration of Zhen Wen Lin ¶¶ 10-11, 13; Declaration of Zhong Kun 

Jiang ¶¶ 10, 12, 14; and Declaration of Zhu Zhen Zheng ¶¶ 9, 11, 13)).) 

It is plain, based on the record before the Court, that there are genuine disputes as to 

many material facts; namely, whether each Plaintiff received a proper wage and overtime pay. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be denied. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court will DENY Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. An appropriate order shall issue today. 

Dated: 12/30/2013 /s/ Robert B. Kugler 

 ROBERT B. KUGLER 

 United States District Judge