Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX GUANGFU CHEN, et al., : Plaintiffs, : 19-CV-11895 (JMF) -v- : MEMORANDUM OPINION : AND ORDER MATSU FUSION RESTAURANT INC., et al., : Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Upon review of the parties’ papers, Defendant Huryin Lam’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. The allegations in the Second Amended Complaint — which, at this stage, must be assumed to be true — are plainly sufficient to support claims against Lam as an employer. See ECF No. 118, 9 21-43; see also, e.g., Ocampo v. 455 Hosp. LLC, No. 14-CV-9614 (KMK), 2021 WL 4267388, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2021) (noting that “Tt]he Second Circuit has interpreted ‘employment for FLSA purposes as a flexible concept to be determined on a case-by-case basis by review of the totality of the circumstances’” and summarizing the applicable tests (quoting Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132, 141-42 (2d Cir. 2008)). Contrary to Lam’s assertions, the fact that many of these allegations were added in response to her earlier motion to dismiss is of no moment; that was literally the point of the amended complaint. See also ECF No. 111 (granting leave to amend “to address issues raised by the [earlier] motion to dismiss”). Nor, contrary to Lam’s suggestions, are the new allegations inconsistent with the allegations in the earlier complaint — let alone in a way or to a degree that would defeat Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 123. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 21, 2021 New York, New York JESS ~. FURMAN United States District Judge