18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 261 personal jurisdiction over them because there was no general or specific jurisdiction. The Court granted Horvath and Ratner’s motion. First, the Court determined that it lacked general jurisdiction over each Defendant, as both Horvath and Ratner lived and worked in Ashburn, Virginia. As to specific jurisdiction, Plaintiffs contended that Horvath and Ratner availed themselves of the forum state because Defendants “exercised their authority over the" salon locations in the State of New Jersey,, and they "played a role in deciding not to pay all employees, including New Jersey employees." Id . at *7. Therefore, Plaintiffs argued that both committed acts in New Jersey in their corporate roles sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ position. It reasoned that Horvath and Ratner’s only contacts with New Jersey were in the context of their corporate capacities, outside of which neither directed any activities toward the forum state. Id . at *9. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed entirely to meet their burden of proving that personal jurisdiction existed over Horvath and Ratner, as they failed to provide any facts relevant to personal jurisdiction by affidavits or other competent evidence. Id. Accordingly, the Court granted Horvath and Ratner’s motion to dismiss. Weiss, et al. v. Staff Restaurant Organization, Case No. 20-CV-8090 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2021). Plaintiff, a restaurant server, filed a class action alleging that Defendants (the restaurant, the restaurant organization, Stephen Starr, the organization’s owner, and a variety of other restaurants associated with Starr) failed to pay all hours worked in violation of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Starr and the other Starr restaurants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the grounds that they were not Plaintiff’s employer. The Court granted the motion. Plaintiff alleged that Starr was his employer because he had power to: (i) hire and fire employees; (ii) determine work schedules and the terms of employment; (iii) set pay rates; and (iv) maintain employment records. The Court held that Plaintiff plausibly alleged that Starr was his employer within the meaning of the NYLL. The Court reasoned that “evidence showing an individual’s authority over management, supervision, and oversight of a company’s affairs in general is relevant to the totality of the circumstances in determining the individual’s operational control of the company’s employment of employees.” Id . at 11. The Court therefore denied the motion to dismiss Starr from the action. Plaintiff also asserted that the other Starr restaurants constituted a single integrated enterprise such that each could be held liable as his employer under the NYLL. The other Starr restaurants argued that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege how each restaurant had control over the terms and conditions of his employment at another restaurant. The Court agreed with the other Starr restaurants. It found that Plaintiff’s contentions were entirely conclusory. The Court thus granted the other Starr restaurants’ motion to dismiss. (xviii) Issues With Opt-In Rights In Wage & Hour Class Actions Roy, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158519 (D. Mass. Aug. 23, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of delivery drivers working through independent service providers (“ISPs”), filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay all wages due in violation of the FLSA. Defendant filed several motions seeking to compel the opt-in Plaintiffs to respond to the parties’ agreed-up questionnaires seeking discovery. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motions. In the first motion, Defendant sought information concerning the number of hours that six current opt-in Plaintiffs worked and the amounts they were paid by the ISPs. Plaintiffs argued that Defendant either had the compensation information it sought or could obtain the information from the ISPs with whom it contracted for delivery. Defendant represented that the ISPs generally do not comply with their contractual obligations to provide pay information to Defendant and that it would be required to subpoena information from the ISPs that failed to provide the requested information. The Court ruled that even if Defendant had a contractual right to obtain pay information from the ISPs, that did not relieve the opt-in Plaintiffs selected by Defendant for discovery from their obligation to produce relevant records if those records were in their possession, custody, or control. As to seven opt-in Plaintiffs who were already ordered by the Court to produce documents, Defendant moved to dismiss their claims for failure to comply with discovery. The Court found dismissal too drastic a measure and ordered the opt-in Plaintiffs to produce the requested documents within 60 days. Finally, Defendant requested the Court enforce the parties’ agreement by compelling "full responses" from Plaintiff-selected opt-ins who had failed to complete the questionnaires and produce the requested documents to Defendant. As a result, Defendant argue that eight of the 50 Plaintiff- selected opt-ins had withdrawn from the case, 15 failed to respond to the questionnaires, one responded that he had discarded responsive documents, one was a delivery driver as of at least November 4, 2020, but failed to produce documents, and one produced illegible documents. Defendant requested that those 18 opt-in Plaintiffs who had failed to respond at all or who had not provided complete responses ought to be required to fully