Opinion ID: 5139201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs Wu and Kai Zhao

Text: With respect to the claims brought by plaintiffs Wu and Zhao directly against New Ichiro Sushi based upon their employment at the restaurant after the sale, Plaintiffs-Appellants challenge the district court’s determination that they “have not met their burden of demonstrating that they were not properly paid while working for New Ichiro Sushi,” Special App’x at 14, because it found their testimony not credible. They assert that the discrepancies identified by the district court in their direct testimonies, which were entered into the record by affidavit and then contradicted by their live testimony during their cross- and redirect examinations, should be set aside because of clear error in the district court’s credibility determinations. We disagree. We do not “second-guess the bench-trial court’s credibility assessments,” as “[i]t is within the province of the district court as the trier of fact to decide whose testimony should be credited.” Krist, 688 F.3d at 95. The district court noted that various plaintiffs (including Wu 9 and Zhao) “swore under oath in Court as to the accuracy and truthfulness of their direct testimony affidavits.” Special App’x at 4. The district court then extensively analyzed the material discrepancies between the sworn affidavits and their testimony and considered any explanations for the discrepancies (including potential translation issues, as the affidavits were written in English, and not in the witnesses’ native language). The district court specifically noted that Zhao “testified that he ‘[did not] know’ and ‘[did not] understand’ what was in his own affidavit.” Special App’x at 5 (alterations in original). After carefully considering the testimony of Wu and Zhao and the material discrepancies in such testimony in light of the evidence, the district court ultimately concluded that Wu and Zhao (and other plaintiffs) “did not have any basis of knowledge for several significant pieces of their affidavit, which they swore again to in Court, making their testimony entirely unreliable.” Special App’x at 5. We find no basis on this record to disturb the district court’s credibility findings. To the extent Plaintiffs-Appellants assert that the district court committed clear error in disregarding documentary evidence (such as time records) and prior statements in the record to ultimately conclude that Wu and Zhao failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that they were not properly paid while working for New Ichiro Sushi, the district court, acknowledging that it was “left with two conflicting [ ] records” and “an incomplete story,” Special App’x at 14, was well within its “province . . . as the trier of fact to decide wh[at] . . . should be credited.” Krist, 688 F.3d at 95. This is not a case where “[d]ocuments or objective evidence . . . contradict the witness’ story” or “the story itself [is] so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face that a reasonable factfinder would not credit it,” Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575, and we thus do not consider whether we “would have weighed the evidence differently,” id. at 574. 10 Accordingly, based upon the district court’s credibility determinations and its corresponding findings of fact, which were not clearly erroneous, the district court properly concluded Wu and Zhao did not meet their burden on their claims.