ASHLEY HICKS, and KRISTIN RAYMOND, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
T.L. CANNON CORP., d/b/a APPLEBEE'S or APPLEBEE'S NEIGHBORHOOD BAR AND GRILL; T.L. CANNON MANAGEMENT CORP.; TLC WEST, LLC; TLC CENTRAL, LLC; TLC UTICA, LLC; TLC NORTH, LLC; DAVID A. STEIN, individually and as Owner and Chairman of T.L. Cannon Corp. and as Director and Chairman of T.L. Cannon Management Corp.; MATTHEW J. FAIRBAIRN, individually and as Owner and President of T.L. Cannon Corp. and as Director and Chief Executive Officer of T.L. Cannon Management Corp.; and JOHN A. PERRY, individually and as Vice-President and Director of Operations of T.L. Cannon Corp. and as President of T.L. Cannon Management Corp., Defendants,
DECISION AND ORDER
MICHAEL A. TELESCA, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, Ashley Hicks and Kristin Raymond (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ("FLSA") and the Minimum Wage Act of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), Art. 19 § 650 et seq., against T.L. Cannon Corp., d/b/a Applebee's or Applebee's Bar and Grill; T.L. Cannon Management Corp.; TLC West, LLC; TLC Central, LLC; TLC Utica, LLC; TLC North, LLC; David A. Stein, individually and as Owner and Chairman of T.L. Cannon Corp. and as Director and Chairman of T.L. Cannon Management Corp.; Matthew J. Fairbairn, individually and as Owner and President of T.L. Cannon Corp. and as Director and Chief Executive Officer of T.L. Cannon Management Corp.; and John A. Perry, individually and as Vice-President and Director of Operations of T.L. Cannon Corp. and as President of T.L. Cannon Management Corp. (collectively, "Defendants") relating to allegations that Defendants failed to pay hourly employees the requisite minimum wage. Defendants move for an Order transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York ("N.D.N.Y."), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Plaintiffs move for an Order striking Defendants' Reply submitted in support of their motion to transfer (Docket No. 52) on the basis that it includes inaccurate factual assertions. In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask the Court to accept their memorandum in support of their motion to strike as a sur-reply to respond to those factual assertions.
For the reasons discussed herein, this Court denies Plaintiff's motion to strike and Plaintiff's request to accept their memorandum as a sur-reply. The Defendants' motion to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York is granted.
This lawsuit is the second case filed against Defendants on behalf of a putative class of hourly employees working in over 50 Applebee's locations throughout the state of New York that alleges wage and hour violations under the FLSA and the NYLL. The first case, Roach, et al. v. T.L. Cannon Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00591 ("Roach"), has been pending in the N.D.N.Y. for nearly three years. In the Roach action that was filed in the N.D.N.Y., Plaintiffs asserted claims for minimum wage and overtime compensation alleging that Defendants did not pay their hourly employees for breaks, and Plaintiffs alleged that employee time records were altered resulting in an underpayment. Plaintiffs in Roach sought to certify a putative statewide class of current and former hourly employees of the New York Applebee's locations that were under the control of Defendants. A significant subsection of that putative class included employees working in tipped occupations.
The Court in Roach denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a Rule 23 class encompassing all of the current and former employees from over 50 Applebee's locations and instead only certified an FLSA collective action limited to a single restaurant. Despite this ruling, Defendants in Roach were directed to provide counsel for the plaintiffs with the names and last known addresses of all individuals employed by the Defendants for purposes of permitting the plaintiffs to engage in pre-certification discovery. Counsel for the Roach plaintiffs, who are the same counsel for Plaintiffs here, utilized that contact list to solicit thousands of individuals for participation in this lawsuit. Plaintiff's counsel included in this solicitation an opt-in consent form to become a plaintiff in this lawsuit, that was yet to be filed. Defendants challenged the propriety of the solicitation by filing a motion for a protective order in the Roach case. The Court denied Defendants' requested relief because the information that Plaintiff's counsel relied upon was not subject to a protective order.
Here, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against the same Defendants named in the Roach action. The two named Plaintiffs are different than any of the named Plaintiffs in Roach, but both of the named Plaintiffs in the instant action are included in the putative class in Roach. As in Roach, Plaintiffs here allege that they have not been paid minimum wages under the NYLL and FLSA. Like the plaintiffs in Roach, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' policies and practices result in an underpayment of minimum wages. In particular, Plaintiffs claim that they were paid tipped wages below the minimum wage even though they spent more than 20% of their time working on non-tipped job duties. Like the plaintiffs in Roach, Plaintiffs here assert their claims on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. In fact, Plaintiffs here, purport to represent a putative class of the same tipped employees that formed a significant subset of the putative class of hourly employees in Roach.
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs move to strike Defendants' reply affirmation in support of their motion to transfer venue on grounds that the reply makes or relies on an inaccurate assertion, that the parties are the same in this action and the Roach action pending in the N.D.N.Y. Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that the information contained in Defendants' reply was not included in their initial moving papers, and therefore Plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to address the issue of whether the parties in both actions are the "same."
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part that "the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). However, motions to strike are generally disfavored. N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. U.S. Gas & Elec., Inc. , 697 F.Supp.2d 415, 438-39 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)(citing Rochester-Genesee Reg'l Transp. Authority v. Hynes-Cherin , 531 F.Supp.2d 494, 519 (W.D.N.Y. 2008)). A motion to strike "will be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation or logical connection to the subject matter of the controversy and may cause some form of significant prejudice to one or more of the parties to the action." Rochester-Genesee , 531 F.Supp.2d at 519.
Here, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated and cannot demonstrate that they have been prejudiced in any way by the Defendants' characterization that the parties are the "same." Defendants have repeatedly explained throughout both their memorandum in support of their motion to transfer venue and their reply memorandum in further support of their motion to transfer venue that the defendants in both actions are the same; that all of the putative plaintiffs in this action are also putative plaintiffs in the Roach action; that the two named Plaintiffs in this action are different, but that they are included in the putative class of the Roach action; that the geographical scope of the two actions is the same; that Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of hourly employees who have worked in ...