Hernandez Linar v. El Valle 794 Rest., Corp.

S.D. New York

Hernandez Linar v. El Valle 794 Rest., Corp.

DecidedJune 21, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-03102

StatusUnknown

This text of Hernandez Linar v. El Valle 794 Rest., Corp. (Hernandez Linar v. El Valle 794 Rest., Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hernandez Linar v. El Valle 794 Rest., Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX PRISCILIANO HERNANDEZ LINAR, : Plaintiff, : : 22-CV-3102 (JMF) -V- : : MEMORANDUM OPINION EL VALLE 794 REST., CORP. et al., : AND ORDER Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On June 15, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that “Plaintiffs version of the facts are 100% inaccurate,” pointing to “time and pay records and wage notices, for the entire relevant period.” See ECF No. 27, at 2. A Court considering a motion to dismiss, however, 1s limited to “the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint,” as well as any documents which the complaint relies upon so heavily that they are “integral to the complaint.” DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010). Defendants’ motion to dismiss is based entirely on documents and other extrinsic evidence that the Court may not consider at the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as frivolous. That said, the Court urges Plaintiff to review the purported evidence submitted by Defendants to ensure that the claims that Plaintiff is pursuing have merit. The Court has not reviewed the purported evidence and intimates no views on the merits of Plaintiffs claims at this time, but it notes that continued pursuit of plainly meritless claims can result in sanctions. See, e.g., Galin v. Hamada, 283 F. Supp. 3d 189, 203-04 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Furman, J.) (imposing Rule 11 sanctions where Plaintiff, at the end of fact discovery, “knew .. . that their allegations on the central (and dispositive) issue in the case were ‘utterly lacking in support’” but nevertheless continued litigation (citing cases)), aff'd, 753 F. App’x 3 (2d Cir. 2018). Defendants shall answer the Complaint within two weeks of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and the parties shall comply with all of the deadlines in the Court’s prior Order of April 15, 2022, see ECF No. 12, including scheduling a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Netburn. The initial pretrial conference, scheduled for June 28, 2022, is rescheduled to July 12, 2022 at 4:30 p.m. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 21, 2022 New York, New York JESS URMAN nited States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX PRISCILIANO HERNANDEZ LINAR, : Plaintiff, : : 22-CV-3102 (JMF) -V- : : MEMORANDUM OPINION EL VALLE 794 REST., CORP. et al., : AND ORDER Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On June 15, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that “Plaintiffs version of the facts are 100% inaccurate,” pointing to “time and pay records and wage notices, for the entire relevant period.” See ECF No. 27, at 2. A Court considering a motion to dismiss, however, 1s limited to “the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint,” as well as any documents which the complaint relies upon so heavily that they are “integral to the complaint.” DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010). Defendants’ motion to dismiss is based entirely on documents and other extrinsic evidence that the Court may not consider at the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as frivolous. That said, the Court urges Plaintiff to review the purported evidence submitted by Defendants to ensure that the claims that Plaintiff is pursuing have merit. The Court has not reviewed the purported evidence and intimates no views on the merits of Plaintiffs claims at this time, but it notes that continued pursuit of plainly meritless claims can result in sanctions. See, e.g., Galin v. Hamada, 283 F. Supp. 3d 189, 203-04 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Furman, J.) (imposing Rule 11 sanctions where Plaintiff, at the end of fact discovery, “knew .. . that their allegations on the central (and dispositive) issue in the case were ‘utterly lacking in support’” but nevertheless continued litigation (citing cases)), aff'd, 753 F. App’x 3 (2d Cir. 2018). Defendants shall answer the Complaint within two weeks of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and the parties shall comply with all of the deadlines in the Court’s prior Order of April 15, 2022, see ECF No. 12, including scheduling a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Netburn. The initial pretrial conference, scheduled for June 28, 2022, is rescheduled to July 12, 2022 at 4:30 p.m. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 21, 2022 New York, New York JESS URMAN nited States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hernandez Linar v. El Valle 794 Rest., Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-linar-v-el-valle-794-rest-corp-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack