United States District Court, S.D. New York
LUIS FERNANDO QUINTERO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
ANJUDIROMI CONSTRUCTION CORP. (d/b/a ANJUDIROMI CONSTRUCTION CORP.), 1221-122 REALTY LLC (d/b/a 2000 LLC), DIEGO RAMIREZ, JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN DOE 2, Defendants.
Attorneys for Plaintiff MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES,
P.C. Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants Diego Ramirez and Anjudiromi
Construction Corp. PAULOSE & ASSOCIATES PLLC, Jasmine E.
W. SWEET, U.S.D.J.
Diego Ramirez ("Ramirez") and Anjudiromi
Construction Corporation ("Anjudiromi
Construction") (collectively, the
"Defendants") have moved pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment against Plaintiff
Luis Fernando Quintero ("Quintero" or the
"Plaintiff"), who has alleged Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law
("NYLL") minimum wage, overtime, and liquidated
damages claims. Based on the facts and conclusions set forth
below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.
filed the complaint (the "Complaint") on November
11, 2016 against the Defendants. (See Dkt. No. 1.) In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of the FLSA and NYLL
minimum wage provisions (Counts One & Three), the FLSA
and NYLL overtime provisions (Counts Two & Four), the
NYLL spread of hours wage order (Count Five), the NYLL notice
and recordkeeping requirements (Count Six), the NYLL wage
statement provisions (Count Seven), and the recovery of
equipment costs in violation of the FLSA and NYLL (Count
Eight). (See Compl. ¶¶ 77-113.)
November 30, 2017, Defendants Ramirez and Anjudiromi
Construction moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 38.) The
instant motion was heard and marked fully submitted on
January 3, 2018.
facts have been set forth in the Defendants' Statements
of Material Facts, (Dkt. No. 40), and the Plaintiff's
Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement, (Dkt. No. 50). The facts are not
in dispute except as noted below.
Ramirez is the sole owner and operator of Anjudiromi
Construction, and the Plaintiff is a former employee of the
business. (Ramirez Dep. 11:2-5.) Anjudiromi Construction is a
building maintenance company responsible for maintaining and
cleaning the residential building located at 2000 Prospect
Avenue, Bronx, New York, 10458 (the "Building").
(See Ex. B, Notice to Admit ¶ 1; Ramirez Dep. 11:11-16;
Quintero Dep. 10:18-25.) Defendant Ramirez hired Plaintiff to
provide maintenance services at the Building from
approximately June, July, or August 2014 through May 25,
2016. (See Ramirez Dep. at 11:11-16 and 16:9-13; Quintero
Dep. 10:18-25, 9:9 and 27:2-3; Quintero Decl. ¶ 2.) The
maintenance services the Plaintiff provided to the Building
included "sweep[ing], pick[ing] up the garbage,
repair[ing] things in all the apartments." (See Quintero
Dep. 10:18-25.) There are approximately 64 apartments in the
Building. (See Quintero Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff was paid
at least $4 50 per week for the entire duration of his
employment. (See Ramirez Dep. 36:14-23; Ramirez Dec. ¶
The Applicable Standard
judgment is appropriate only where "there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c). A dispute is "genuine" if "the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The relevant inquiry on
application for summary judgment is "whether the
evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law." Id. at
251-52. A court is not charged with weighing the evidence and
determining its truth, but with determining whether there is
a genuine issue for trial. Nestinghouse Elec. Corp. v.
N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 735 F.Supp. 1205, 1212 (S.D.N.Y.
1990) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249). "The
moving party is 'entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law' because the nonmoving party has failed to make a
sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with
respect to which she has the burden of proof."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
"[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute
between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly
supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is
that there be no genuine issue of material fact."
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48 (emphasis in original).
The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is
The FLSA Claims (Counts One & Two)
alleges that the FLSA applies to Defendants, and that they
violated the statute's minimum wage and overtime
provisions. Defendants argue that they should be granted
summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's FLSA claims
because the statute's provisions do not apply to them.
Specifically, the Defendants argue that they did not engage
in, or direct the Plaintiff to engage in, interstate commerce
as defined by the FLSA.
establish liability under the FLSA, Plaintiff bears the
burden of demonstrating that Defendants were employers
pursuant to the statute, and that they were engaged in
interstate commerce. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 203, 206,
207; see also Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172
F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 203(d)
(1994)) ("To be held liable under the FLSA, a person
must be an 'employer, ' which [29 U.S.C. §
203(d)] of the statute defines broadly as 'any person
acting directly or indirectly ...