Source: https://casetext.com/case/yong-kui-chen-v-wai-cafe-inc
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:16:11+00:00

Document:
Yong Kui Chen v. Wai? Cafe Inc.
Yong Kui Chenv.Wai? Cafe Inc.
The plaintiffs in this case bring claims for unpaid wages, overtime, and spread of hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and New York Labor Law against their former employer, Wai ? Café Inc. ("Wai ? Café"), and its owner, Wai Yin Chan. The parties consented to proceed before me for all purposes in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and agreed to try liability issues to a jury, reserving for me the calculation of damages. Shortly before trial, defendants' counsel was relieved, and Mr. Chan proceeded to trial pro se. Because the corporate defendant failed to appear by counsel at trial, it was held to be in default. Plaintiff Yong Kui Chen did not attend the trial, and his claims were therefore dismissed. The claims of Jian Hui Lin, who was not named in the original Complaint, but who had submitted a form indicating his consent to sue under the FLSA, were submitted to the jury.
The trial was held on February 6 and 7, 2012. At the close of the evidence, the jury was asked to make liability determinations with respect to each of the plaintiffs' claims and to make factual findings that would serve as the basis for calculating damages.
A threshold issue in any FLSA case is whether the plaintiffs are "covered" employees under the statute. "The FLSA minimum-wage and overtime provisions apply only to employees who are (1) personally engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce (so-called 'individual coverage'), or (2) [were] employed in an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce (so-called 'enterprise coverage')." Garcia v. Serpe, No. 3:08cv1662, 2012 WL 380253, at *4 (D. Conn. Feb. 6, 2012) (alteration in original) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the plaintiffs never contended that they personally performed work related to the production of goods transported across state lines, so individual coverage is not triggered. To establish enterprise coverage, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the employees "engage in commerce or handle, sell, or otherwise work on goods and materials that have been moved in commerce, and  the enterprise has at least $500,000 in annual gross volume of sales made or business done." Solis v. Cindy's Total Care, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 7242, 2012 WL 28141, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2012) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)). At trial, the jury found that the plaintiffs had not shown that Wai ? Café's annual gross receipts exceeded $500,000.00. The FLSA claims must therefore be dismissed.
Nevertheless, I will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims under New York Labor Law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a federal district court that has original jurisdiction over a civil action may also exercise jurisdiction over other claims unless certain exceptions apply. Where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, it is generally appropriate to dismiss without prejudice any state claims. See Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 56 (2d Cir. 2004). However, where the parties and the court have expended substantial resources in preparation for trial, and particularly where a case has actually been tried, it is appropriate to retain jurisdiction over state claims even when the federal claims are dismissed. See id. (approving exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state claims tried in conjunction with federal claims that were subsequently dismissed); Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1181, 1191-92 (2d Cir. 1996) (allowing supplemental jurisdiction where case had proceeded for more than a year and federal claims were dismissed only nine days before scheduled trial); Purgess v. Sharrock, 33 F.3d 134, 138 (2d Cir. 1994) (where dismissal of federal claim occurs "late in the action, after there has been substantial expenditure in time, effort, and money in preparing the dependent claims, knocking them down with a belated rejection of supplemental jurisdiction may not be fair. Nor is it by any means necessary.").
This is such a case. The parties completed discovery, submitted the pretrial order, and tried a case in which the federal and state claims were based on the same constellation of facts. In such circumstances, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims is warranted.
With respect to the remaining liability issues, the jury concluded that each plaintiff had been denied the appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours pay. The jury also found, however, that Mr. Chan had not acted willfully, thus precluding the plaintiffs from an award of liquidated damages. N.Y. Labor Law § 663(1).
Following trial, the parties were invited to submit proposed damages calculations based on the jury's findings as to the periods of time each plaintiff worked, the hours that plaintiff worked each week, and the amount he was actually paid. The plaintiffs made such a submission, and also indicated that they were waiving any claim for attorneys' fees. (Letter of C.K. Lee dated Feb. 14, 2012 ("Pl. Damages Statement")). Mr. Chan did not file a response. The following determinations constitute my findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiffs incorrectly calculated the hourly rate at $2.34.
The plaintiffs incorrectly state this figure as 39 hours here and also for the next two periods.
The plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA are dismissed. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
The plaintiffs request that I "reapportion" the costs of the interpreter who translated for both the plaintiffs and Mr. Chan at trial. (Pl. Damages Statement). This application is moot; as the prevailing parties, the plaintiffs are entitled to costs, and interpreter expenses are included among taxable costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6).

References: v. 
 § 201
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 § 203
 § 1367
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 663
 § 1920