United States District Court, S.D. New York
JAMIE MARTIN and DANEISHA SINGLETON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and the Proposed New York Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs,
SPRINT UNITED MANAGEMENT CO., CREDICO USA, LLC, and WALLACE MORGAN, INC., Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
A. ENGELMAYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jamie Martin and Daneisha Singleton brought this action on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §
201, et. seq. ("FLSA"), and the New York
Labor Law, N.Y. Lab. Law § 650, et. seq.
("NYLL"). Plaintiffs served as field agents
securing low-income customers to acquire wireless telephones
of defendant Sprint/United Management Company
("Sprint") pursuant to a federal subsidy program.
They claimed primarily that they were misclassified as
independent contractors rather than employees and that, as a
result, they were denied statutorily required minimum wage
and overtime compensation. They sought to hold Sprint and
co-defendants Credico (USA), LLC ("Credico") and
Wallace Morgan, Inc. ("Wallace Morgan") jointly
responsible for this willful misclassification.
September 27, 2017, this Court issued an opinion and order
granting summary judgment in favor of defendants and denying
partial summary judgment to plaintiffs. See Martin v.
Sprint United Mgmt. Co., 15 Civ. 5237 (PAE), 2017 WL
4326109 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2017). Without deciding whether
plaintiffs were properly classified as employees or
independent contractors, the Court held that (1) Sprint and
Credico were not plaintiffs' joint employers, and (2)
plaintiffs fell within the outside sales exemptions to the
FLSA and NYLL. See Id. That ruling precluded
liability altogether for Sprint and Credico, and precluded
liability for Wallace Morgan on all claims against it save
two: plaintiffs' wage-notice claims under NYLL sections
195(1)(a) and (3). Because the parties' briefing at
summary judgment did not directly address those claims, the
Court commissioned letter memoranda from plaintiffs and
Wallace Morgan as to (1) whether an employer is bound to
comply with the NYLL wage-notice provisions where New
York's outside sales exemption applies, and (2), if so,
how the Court ought to proceed with respect to these claims.
See Martin, 2017 WL 4326109, at *34.
Court is now in receipt of those submissions. For the reasons
that follow, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over these pendent state-law claims.
Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts and
procedural history of this case, as set forth in the
Court's summary judgment opinion. See Martin,
2017 WL 4326109, at *2-l 1. The Court nevertheless briefly
recites certain facts relevant to the issue at
worked as field agents for Wallace Morgan on Sprint's
Assurance Wireless campaign. JSF ¶ 52. Martin worked for
Wallace Morgan from approximately March 29, 2015 through May
7, 2015. Id.¶l. Singleton worked for Wallace
Morgan from approximately April 3, 2015 through May 7, 2015.
Id. ¶ 4. Each signed an "Independent Sales
Representative Agreement, " and each was paid by Wallace
Morgan as an independent contractor. Id.
¶¶ 49-50, 56.
hire, field agents completed "Agent Acknowledgment
Forms" listing their "Outreach Agency, "
"Agent Name, " "Agent Code, " "Agent
Start Date, " and the geographical areas in which they
would work. PI. 56.1 ¶¶ 206, 208. In connection
with the Assurance Wireless campaign, Credico used a database
system it referred to as "ARC." Wallace Morgan 56.1
¶ 75. That system generated "Office Payment
Summaries" containing each field agent's badge
number, name, and commissions, with the latter listing
"full pay, " "advance, " "remain,
" "recover, " and "total" amounts.
Id. ¶ 83. Further, ARC generated "Agent
Commission Statements" for each agent containing the
agent's name, the agent's total compensation, the
current sales week, and the pay date, as well as entries for
the following categories: "Client ID, "
"Signed Date, " "Customer Name, "
"Client Status/Reason, " "Product, "
"Pay Action, " "Amount, " and "Total
For [Field Agent]." Id. ¶¶ 85-87.
Wallace Morgan also maintained payroll records, PI. 56.1
¶ 83, which included the following information:
"Company, " "Check Date, " "Name,
" "Hours, " "Total Paid, " "Tax
Withheld, " "Deductions, " "Net Pay,
" "Check No, " "Employer Liability,
" "Total Expense, " "Pay Frequency,
" "Department, " "Total Net Pays, "
"Pay Frequency Totals, " and "Company
Totals." First Srey Deck, Exs. 30, 31.
parties' statements of undisputed fact otherwise lack
information related to whether plaintiffs received wage
notices at hiring and/or regular pay statements.
Applicable Legal Standards
district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state-law
claims "that are so related to claims in the action
within [the courts'] original jurisdiction that they form
part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
United States Constitution." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
However, "such jurisdiction is discretionary, "
Vuona v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 919 F.Supp.2d 359,
393 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing City of Chicago v. Int'l
Coll of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997)), and "a
district court 'may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction' if it 'has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction.'" Id.
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). "[I]n the usual
case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before
trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the
pendent jurisdiction doctrine-judicial economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity-will point toward declining to exercise
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims."
Sefovic v. Mem'l Sloan Kettering Cancer
Ctr., No. 15 Civ. 5792 (PAC), 2017 WL 3668845, at *8
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2017) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)); see also
Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998)
("In general, where the federal claims are dismissed
before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as
NYLL Wage-Notice Provisions
section 195(1)(a) requires "[e]very employer" to
provide his or her employees, "in writing ... at the
time of hiring, " a notice containing ...