NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1504-19T3
DATHON VALDES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CLEAN EATS MEAL PREP, INC., and NOAH PELLEGRINI, individually,
Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________
Submitted November 12, 2020 – Decided December 10, 2020
Before Judges Rose and Firko.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L-3110-17.
Dathon Valdes, appellant pro se.
Matthew H. Sontz, attorney for respondents.
PER CURIAM
In this Law Division action, plaintiff Dathon Valdes filed a pro se
complaint against defendants Clean Eats Meal Prep, Inc. and Noah Pellegrini, generally alleging a violation of the Wage and Hour Laws, N.J.S.A. 34:11-1 to
-68, among six other causes of action. Defendants answered and the matter was
scheduled for a jury trial pursuant to plaintiff's demand. During the pretrial
conference, the trial judge noted his concerns "about the nature of the case" as
gleaned from the parties' submissions. Accordingly, the judge sua sponte held
an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge dismissed
plaintiff's wage and hour claim, finding as a matter of law that plaintiff was an
owner of Clean Eats. After plaintiff abandoned his remaining claims, the judge
issued a final judgment, dismissing plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.
Plaintiff now appeals pro se from the October 7, 2019 final judgment,
raising the following points for our consideration:
POINT I
ONCE . . . PLAINTIFF DEMANDED A TRIAL BY JURY, ALL ISSUES SO DEMANDED HAD TO BE DECIDED BY A JURY, NOT A SITTING JUDGE.
POINT II
THE TRIAL JUDGE IGNORED CASE LAW AND THE STATUTORY PROVISION IN N.J.S.A. 43:21- 19(i)(6) TO CONCLUDE THAT . . . PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF CLEAN EATS.
A-1504-19T3 2 Because we conclude the trial judge properly conducted the N.J.R.E. 104
hearing and correctly concluded plaintiff was an owner of Clean Eats as a matter
of law, we affirm.
The facts are straightforward and derived from the hearing. Plaintiff, who
was the sole witness to testify, presented evidence in support of his theory that
he was an employee of Clean Eats. The parties introduced in evidence several
documents, including Clean Eats' certificate of incorporation.
Plaintiff, Pellegrini and David Rivera 1 had met one another at work. In
March 2015, plaintiff contacted Pellegrini and Rivera to pitch his concept for
Clean Eats – a web-based delivery service that sold healthy home-cooked meals.
Because plaintiff lacked the funds to establish the company, the parties agreed
that Pellegrini and Rivera would contribute start-up capital and plaintiff would
"put in time and effort" performing "certain administrative and kitchen duties,
without pay." Plaintiff acknowledged those services "would ultimately serve as
[his] contribution toward becoming part owner of Clean Eats." The parties'
agreement was not memorialized in writing.
1 Plaintiff's complaint did not name Rivera as a defendant and, as such, he is not a party to this appeal.
A-1504-19T3 3 The following month, Clean Eats was registered as a for-profit corporation
in this State. The company's certificate of incorporation listed plaintiff, Rivera
and Pellegrini as its directors. According to the initial corporate documents,
which were unsigned, plaintiff was issued thirty-three shares of common stock
and was appointed the company's secretary.
Several electronic-message exchanges among plaintiff, Pellegrini and
Rivera underscored their business relationship. As one notable example,
Pellegrini messaged the others that he had emailed to them a "copy of [the]
receipt from [L]egal[] [Z]oom for registration of [the] business." In his
responding message, plaintiff acknowledged receipt of Pellegrini's email and
inquired whether "CleanEatsNJ" was available as the company's official name.
Further, in response to Pellegrini's message about the fee he had incurred in
registering the business and that he would "keep track of expenses and receipts
for everything," plaintiff responded: "Perfect." In two other messages, plaintiff
referred to Pellegrini and Rivera as his partners; in the second message plaintiff
stated:
6 months from now it's gonna be a while [sic] new league were [sic] [] stepping into. Let's jump [tax] brackets PARTNERS[.]
A-1504-19T3 4 Plaintiff then began working as initially agreed, which generally included
purchasing, cooking and plating the meals purchased by the company's
customers.
Plaintiff claimed that sometime in September 2015, he was "locked out"
of the company's website after he "asked to view official tax records" to
"confirm[] Clean Eats was withholding the required Federal income and payroll
taxes from its employees and paying the same to the IRS." Plaintiff testified
that the company's three employees were paid hourly by Pellegrini, but plaintiff
"wasn't paid at all." Plaintiff claimed he initially agreed his "wages would be
withheld for . . . two months . . . and then traded for stocks in the company."
Plaintiff contended he worked without pay for five months.
Around the same time, Pellegrini and Rivera sought to dissolve Clean
Eats. In mid-September 2015, Pellegrini sent plaintiff correspondence, asserting
plaintiff owed Clean Eats $4172. In his responsive September 22, 2015
correspondence, plaintiff memorialized the parties' initial agreement that Rivera
and Pellegrini "agreed to fund the start up of the company[,]" and plaintiff
"would take up certain administrative and kitchen duties, without pay (off the
clock), which would ultimately serve as [his] contribution toward becoming part
owner of Clean Eats." On cross-examination, plaintiff acknowledged he "called
A-1504-19T3 5 the State of New Jersey and stopped the dissolution" filed by Pellegrini and
Rivera "on the basis" that he was "a shareholder."
Following argument, the trial judge issued a cogent oral decision,
concluding plaintiff was not an employee of Clean Eats. The judge squarely
addressed plaintiff's wage and hour claim in view of the applicable legal
principles.
Noting plaintiff's complaint "overwhelmingly appears to be a business
dispute," the judge found the undisputed testimony in the record established
plaintiff, Pellegrini and Rivera "agreed to start a business," and the documentary
evidence reflected "they actually incorporated that business." In that regard, the
judge found the company's certificate of incorporation was "[t]he key document"
because, as plaintiff "acknowledge[d]," the document named plaintiff,
Pellegrini, and Rivera as the directors of Clean Eats. The judge also found
persuasive plaintiff's September 22, 2015 letter to Pellegrini, wherein plaintiff
acknowledged his "in kind" contribution to Clean Eats. Citing the electronic
messages sent from plaintiff to Pellegrini and Rivera, the judge noted plaintiff
"refer[ed] to himself as a partner."
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1504-19T3
DATHON VALDES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CLEAN EATS MEAL PREP, INC., and NOAH PELLEGRINI, individually,
Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________
Submitted November 12, 2020 – Decided December 10, 2020
Before Judges Rose and Firko.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L-3110-17.
Dathon Valdes, appellant pro se.
Matthew H. Sontz, attorney for respondents.
PER CURIAM
In this Law Division action, plaintiff Dathon Valdes filed a pro se
complaint against defendants Clean Eats Meal Prep, Inc. and Noah Pellegrini, generally alleging a violation of the Wage and Hour Laws, N.J.S.A. 34:11-1 to
-68, among six other causes of action. Defendants answered and the matter was
scheduled for a jury trial pursuant to plaintiff's demand. During the pretrial
conference, the trial judge noted his concerns "about the nature of the case" as
gleaned from the parties' submissions. Accordingly, the judge sua sponte held
an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge dismissed
plaintiff's wage and hour claim, finding as a matter of law that plaintiff was an
owner of Clean Eats. After plaintiff abandoned his remaining claims, the judge
issued a final judgment, dismissing plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.
Plaintiff now appeals pro se from the October 7, 2019 final judgment,
raising the following points for our consideration:
POINT I
ONCE . . . PLAINTIFF DEMANDED A TRIAL BY JURY, ALL ISSUES SO DEMANDED HAD TO BE DECIDED BY A JURY, NOT A SITTING JUDGE.
POINT II
THE TRIAL JUDGE IGNORED CASE LAW AND THE STATUTORY PROVISION IN N.J.S.A. 43:21- 19(i)(6) TO CONCLUDE THAT . . . PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF CLEAN EATS.
A-1504-19T3 2 Because we conclude the trial judge properly conducted the N.J.R.E. 104
hearing and correctly concluded plaintiff was an owner of Clean Eats as a matter
of law, we affirm.
The facts are straightforward and derived from the hearing. Plaintiff, who
was the sole witness to testify, presented evidence in support of his theory that
he was an employee of Clean Eats. The parties introduced in evidence several
documents, including Clean Eats' certificate of incorporation.
Plaintiff, Pellegrini and David Rivera 1 had met one another at work. In
March 2015, plaintiff contacted Pellegrini and Rivera to pitch his concept for
Clean Eats – a web-based delivery service that sold healthy home-cooked meals.
Because plaintiff lacked the funds to establish the company, the parties agreed
that Pellegrini and Rivera would contribute start-up capital and plaintiff would
"put in time and effort" performing "certain administrative and kitchen duties,
without pay." Plaintiff acknowledged those services "would ultimately serve as
[his] contribution toward becoming part owner of Clean Eats." The parties'
agreement was not memorialized in writing.
1 Plaintiff's complaint did not name Rivera as a defendant and, as such, he is not a party to this appeal.
A-1504-19T3 3 The following month, Clean Eats was registered as a for-profit corporation
in this State. The company's certificate of incorporation listed plaintiff, Rivera
and Pellegrini as its directors. According to the initial corporate documents,
which were unsigned, plaintiff was issued thirty-three shares of common stock
and was appointed the company's secretary.
Several electronic-message exchanges among plaintiff, Pellegrini and
Rivera underscored their business relationship. As one notable example,
Pellegrini messaged the others that he had emailed to them a "copy of [the]
receipt from [L]egal[] [Z]oom for registration of [the] business." In his
responding message, plaintiff acknowledged receipt of Pellegrini's email and
inquired whether "CleanEatsNJ" was available as the company's official name.
Further, in response to Pellegrini's message about the fee he had incurred in
registering the business and that he would "keep track of expenses and receipts
for everything," plaintiff responded: "Perfect." In two other messages, plaintiff
referred to Pellegrini and Rivera as his partners; in the second message plaintiff
stated:
6 months from now it's gonna be a while [sic] new league were [sic] [] stepping into. Let's jump [tax] brackets PARTNERS[.]
A-1504-19T3 4 Plaintiff then began working as initially agreed, which generally included
purchasing, cooking and plating the meals purchased by the company's
customers.
Plaintiff claimed that sometime in September 2015, he was "locked out"
of the company's website after he "asked to view official tax records" to
"confirm[] Clean Eats was withholding the required Federal income and payroll
taxes from its employees and paying the same to the IRS." Plaintiff testified
that the company's three employees were paid hourly by Pellegrini, but plaintiff
"wasn't paid at all." Plaintiff claimed he initially agreed his "wages would be
withheld for . . . two months . . . and then traded for stocks in the company."
Plaintiff contended he worked without pay for five months.
Around the same time, Pellegrini and Rivera sought to dissolve Clean
Eats. In mid-September 2015, Pellegrini sent plaintiff correspondence, asserting
plaintiff owed Clean Eats $4172. In his responsive September 22, 2015
correspondence, plaintiff memorialized the parties' initial agreement that Rivera
and Pellegrini "agreed to fund the start up of the company[,]" and plaintiff
"would take up certain administrative and kitchen duties, without pay (off the
clock), which would ultimately serve as [his] contribution toward becoming part
owner of Clean Eats." On cross-examination, plaintiff acknowledged he "called
A-1504-19T3 5 the State of New Jersey and stopped the dissolution" filed by Pellegrini and
Rivera "on the basis" that he was "a shareholder."
Following argument, the trial judge issued a cogent oral decision,
concluding plaintiff was not an employee of Clean Eats. The judge squarely
addressed plaintiff's wage and hour claim in view of the applicable legal
principles.
Noting plaintiff's complaint "overwhelmingly appears to be a business
dispute," the judge found the undisputed testimony in the record established
plaintiff, Pellegrini and Rivera "agreed to start a business," and the documentary
evidence reflected "they actually incorporated that business." In that regard, the
judge found the company's certificate of incorporation was "[t]he key document"
because, as plaintiff "acknowledge[d]," the document named plaintiff,
Pellegrini, and Rivera as the directors of Clean Eats. The judge also found
persuasive plaintiff's September 22, 2015 letter to Pellegrini, wherein plaintiff
acknowledged his "in kind" contribution to Clean Eats. Citing the electronic
messages sent from plaintiff to Pellegrini and Rivera, the judge noted plaintiff
"refer[ed] to himself as a partner."
A-1504-19T3 6 Turning to the governing law, the trial judge cited the relevant factors
recognized by this court more than twenty years ago in Pukowsky v. Caruso to
determine whether in the present case plaintiff was an employee of Clean Eats:
(1) the employer's right to control the means and manner of the worker's performance; (2) the kind of occupation—supervised or unsupervised; (3) skill; (4) who furnishes the equipment and workplace; (5) the length of time in which the individual has worked; (6) the method of payment; (7) the manner of termination of the work relationship; (8) whether there is annual leave; (9) whether the work is an integral part of the business of the "employer;" (10) whether the worker accrues retirement benefits; (11) whether the "employer" pays social security taxes; and (12) the intention of the parties.
[312 N.J. Super. 171, 182-83 (App. Div. 1998) (citations omitted).]
Focusing on factor twelve, the trial judge found the "intention of the
parties at the outset was . . . simply that [plaintiff], who didn't have capital to
contribute to the start of the business, . . . would contribute in-kind work" and
would "not to be paid wages." On the other hand, the capital contribution would
be made by Pellegrini and Rivera. "And, with great optimism and enthusiasm,
they started a business" that "didn't work out." The judge therefore concluded
plaintiff, as an owner of Clean Eats, "was not an employee of the company."
Accordingly, the judge dismissed plaintiff's wage and hour violation claim.
A-1504-19T3 7 Following a half-hour break to afford plaintiff time to collect his thoughts
regarding the evidence he sought to present to the jury on his remaining claims,
plaintiff informed the judge he could not "go to trial without the evidence" the
judge had "removed." Confirming plaintiff wished to withdraw the remaining
claims, the judge dismissed the complaint. After plaintiff's ensuing motions for
reconsideration and clarification were denied, plaintiff filed the present appeal.
We have carefully considered the contentions raised on appeal in view of
the applicable law, and conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion
in our written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the
reasons expressed by the trial judge in his well-reasoned decision. We add only
the following brief remarks.
The decision whether to hold an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing is within the sound
discretion of the trial court. See Kemp v. State, 174 N.J. 412, 432 (2002). We
therefore review the judge's decision under an abuse of discretion standard. See
Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369, 383-84 (2010)
(recognizing "[e]videntiary decisions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion
standard because, from its genesis, the decision to admit or exclude evidence is
one firmly entrusted to the trial court's discretion"). We will reverse the trial
court's determination only if "there has been a clear error of judgment." Griffin
A-1504-19T3 8 v. City of E. Orange, 225 N.J. 400, 413 (2016) (citation omitted). Thus, "we
will reverse an evidentiary ruling only if it 'was so wide off the mark that a
manifest denial of justice resulted.'" Ibid. (citation omitted).
A trial judge as gatekeeper, must consider the framework for admission
of any evidence, which starts with a relevancy determination under N.J.R.E.
401, i.e., whether the evidence "h[as] a tendency in reason to prove or disprove
any fact of consequence to the determination of the action." The judge's
gatekeeping function is consistent with N.J.R.E. 611, which requires a court to
"exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses
and presenting evidence to: (1) make those procedures effective for determining
the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or
undue embarrassment." As the commentary to N.J.R.E. 611 makes clear, "the
court should address many of the issues implicated by this at a hearing outside
the presence of the jury, pursuant to N.J.R.E. 104." Of course, we review the
court's legal conclusions de novo. See Kean Fed'n of Teachers v. Morell, 233
N.J. 566, 583 (2018).
In the present matter, the parties' pretrial submissions alerted the judge
that plaintiff was "one of the principals" of Clean Eats, calling into question the
relevance of plaintiff's wage and hour violation claim. Plaintiff was then
A-1504-19T3 9 afforded the opportunity to testify at the N.J.R.E. 104 hearing and present
documentary evidence in support of his contention that he was an employee of
Clean Eats. We therefore discern no abuse of discretion in the court's decision
to hold an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing, which afforded plaintiff an opportunity to
establish his claim. See Model Jury Charges (Civil), 5.10H, "Agency"
(approved May 2002/revised Aug. 2011) (noting "if there are no disputed facts
or disputed inferences which may be drawn from undisputed facts concerning
the relationship, the judge should determine whether or not there is an
employer/employee relationship as a matter of law").
Having conducted a de novo review of the record, we are satisfied the trial
judge correctly concluded the plaintiff's status as a principal of Clean Eats was
undisputed and, as such, the judge correctly dismissed his wage and hour
violation claim.
Affirmed.
A-1504-19T3 10