Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gao v. Yellowstone Transportation, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York

February 15, 2017

XIDONG GAO, DESHENG ZHANG, BIN LI, YANG WANG and HONGJUN HOU, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
YELLOWSTONE TRANSPORTATION, INC. d/b/a Yes Car Services; YES CAR SERVICES, INC. d/b/a Yes Car Services; APRIL 2012 TRANSPORTATION, INC. d/b/a Yes Car Services; TONY LAW, and JOHN 01-05 DOE's, Defendants.

          TROY LAW, PLLC BY: JOHN TROY, ESQ.KIBUM BYUN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.BENJAMIN B. XUE, ESQ. KEVIN K. YAM, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants Yellowstone Transportation, Inc. Yes Car Services, Inc., and April 2012 Transportation, Inc.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          LEONARD D. WEXLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. For the following reasons, Defendants motion is denied in its entirety.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs, Xidong Gao ("Gao"), Desheng Zhang ("Zhang"), Bin Li ("Li"), Yang Wang ("Wang"), and Hongjun Hou ("Hou") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), are all former employees of Defendants Yellowstone Transportation, Inc., Yes Car Services, Inc., and April 2012 Transportation, Inc., all doing business as Yes Car Services ("Yes" or "Defendants"), and their owner/operator, Defendant Tony Law ("Law"). Yes is a car service and Plaintiffs are all current or former drivers for the company.

         Gao was employed by Yes from approximately August 2013 to October 2013. (Am. Compl. ¶ 43.) Gao regularly worked twelve hours per day, six days per week for a total of seventy-two hours each workweek. (Id. ¶ 46.) On average, Gao drove approximately one hundred and fifty to two hundred miles per day. (IdL ¶ 47.)

         Zhang began his employment for Yes on or about January 1, 2014 and is still currently a driver for Yes to date. (Id. ¶ 70.) Zhang regularly works thirteen and a half hours per day, six days per week, totaling eighty-one hours each workweek. (Id. ¶ 73.) Zhang drives an average of one hundred and fifty to two hundred miles each day. (Id. ¶ 74.)

         Li began his employment for Yes on or about August 1, 2014 and continues to drive for Yes to date. (Id. ¶ 104.) Li regularly works ten and a half hours per day, six days per week, and, every two week, Li works seven days per week, averaging sixty-eight and a quarter hours each week. (Id. ¶¶ 107-09.) On average, Li drives one hundred and fifty to two hundred miles each day. (Id. ¶ 110.)

         Yang began his employment for Yes on or about December 11, 2012 and is still currently a driver for Yes to date. (Id. ¶ 141.) Yang regularly worked twelve and a half hours per day, six days per week, and, every three weeks, Yang works seven days per week, averaging approximately seventy-nine hours per week. (Id. ¶¶ 144-46.) Yang drives an average of one hundred and fifty to two hundred miles each day. (Id. ¶ 147.)

         Hou began his employment with Yes on or about May 23, 2013 and continues to drive for Yes to date. (Id. ¶ 179.) Hou regularly works twelve hours each day, seven days per week, for a total of eighty-four hours per week. (Id. ¶ 183.) On average, Hou drives one hundred and fifty to two hundred miles each day. (Id. ¶ 184.)

         Defendants controlled Plaintiffs' work through dispatch orders, sending them to specified clients. (Id. ¶¶ 48, 75, 111, 148, 185.) Plaintiffs were required to work solely and exclusively for Yes and were monitored through the radio dispatcher. (Id. ¶¶ 49, 76, 112, 149, 186.) If caught working for another car service other than Yes, Plaintiffs would be disciplined and terminated. (Id¶¶50, 77, 113, 150, 187.)

         As a precondition for employment, Plaintiff Gao was required to incorporate a company in his own name and to pay two hundred and seventy-five dollars every half month to Yes as a semi-weekly radio deposit. (Id. ¶¶ 52, 54-55.) In addition to this deposit, Defendants also deducted one dollar for each ride from Gao's wages. (Id. ¶ 55.)

         As preconditions for their employment, Plaintiffs Zhang, Li, Wang and Hou were required to incorporate companies in their own names and to use the newly incorporated companies to open business checking accounts at Chase Manhattan Bank. (Id. ¶¶ 78-79, 114-15, 151-52, 188-89.) Zhang, Li, Wang and Hou were also required to pay radio initiating costs that ranged from one thousand six hundred to two thousand dollars, as well as weekly radio deposits ranging from one hundred and fifty-five to one hundred and eighty dollars, and thirty-five dollars per month for Yes's telephone services. 1 (Id. ΒΆΒΆ 80, 83-84, 116, 120-21, 153, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.