Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 348
plaintiffs also alleged they worked more than 40 hours per week without being paid
overtime. Id. at *4. The defendants argued that no reasonable customer would have
understood the service charge was a gratuity because each client contract contained
plain, clear language that the charge was not a gratuity. Id. at *8. The defendants also
argued that the plaintiffs are not employees for purposes of Labor Law § 196-d. The trial
court conducted a detailed analysis of the service charge language and the factors
relevant to determining an employee/employer relationship and denied the defendants’
motion for summary judgment on these allegations. Regarding class certification, the
trial court referenced CPLR 901, which closely aligns with Rule 23, and granted the
plaintiffs’ class certification motion. Id. at *30. The court reasoned that the threshold
number for numerosity was 40, and that the plaintiffs alleged at least 50 putative class
members, thereby satisfying that requirement. Id. at *26. As to whether questions of law
or fact predominated over individual questions, the court rejected the defendants’
argument that certification would require an individualized analysis into whether each
class member is an employee and whether each client contract included a mandatory
service charge, thus finding the suit amenable to class certification. Id. at *26. The court,
however, made clear that the certified class only included individuals who worked in a
service capacity and did not include workers who do not customarily receive gratuity,
such as cooks, food prepares, dishwashers and other clerical workers. Id. at *30.
In Quinatoa, et al. v. Hewlett Associates, LP, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2101 (N.Y. Misc.
Apr. 21, 2022), the plaintiffs, a group of tenants in defendants’ New York apartments,
brought a class action asserting rent overcharges based on alleged violations of
Administrative Code § 11-243, which requires that landlords who receive tax credits for
capital improvements allow for rent-stabilization. Id. at *1-2. The plaintiffs claimed that
the defendants systematically violated the rent-stabilization laws by listing only a portion
of their units as rent-stabilized. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
under CPLR § 3211 on the basis that the complaint did not satisfy the prerequisites for
a class action. Id. at *5. In analyzing the class certification question, the court noted that
New York’s state rules “favor the maintenance of class actions and support a liberal
interpretation” of those requirements. Id. at *7. The court further noted that class criteria
should be liberally construed to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, but that general
and conclusory allegations will not suffice. Id. at *8. The defendants’ opposition to class
certification centered on the plaintiffs’ alleged inadequacy as class representatives,
citing the conclusory nature of their affidavits, which according to the defendants,
illustrated that the plaintiffs did not know enough about the case, and were not
sufficiently invested in the lawsuit such that they could adequately represent the class.
Id. at *15. The court rejected the defendants’ argument. It found that the plaintiffs
satisfied the adequacy requirement because they were generally familiar with the
elements of the claim and that there is a presumption that class representatives will rely
on the expertise of their attorneys. Id. at *14. The court further found that a class action
was the superior method of adjudication because the alternative would involve
numerous actions by individual tenants or administrative proceedings, and that a class
action would conserve judicial resources by avoiding a multiplicity of lawsuits based on
the same facts. Id. at * 20.
347
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
