Chaine v Paris Limousine Servs., Corp.
Annotate this CaseDecided on July 29, 2011
Supreme Court, New York County
Matthew Chaine, Anwar Khan Reduane Jaduad, Mohamad Tariq And Kamal Khan, Individually and on Behalf of All other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
against
Paris Limousine Services, Corp., Chaudry Ali, Ramahi Ali, And John Does No.1-10, Jointly and Severally, Defendants.
20786/2010
Attorney for Plaintiffs: William C. Rand, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants: Mumtaz Alvi, Esq.
Alexander W. Hunter Jr., J.
The motion by plaintiffs for an order pursuant to CPLR §§ 901-909 granting class certification for plaintiffs' state law claims, certifying a class of all limousine driver employees of defendants during the period from July 29, 2004 to present, and appointing Matthew Chaine, Anwar Khan, Reduane Jaduad, Mohammad Tariq, and Kamal Khan as lead plaintiffs representing the class, and William Rand, Esq. as class counsel, is denied.
Defendants operate a limousine and luxury car service. Clients arrange for service and receive bills in advance. Receipts show that a 20% "service" charge is added to every bill and collected by defendants. Plaintiffs assert that this charge constitutes a gratuity that must be remitted to the drivers under New York Labor Law § 196-d and that defendants have systematically failed to do so. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants failed to compensate them for overtime hours as required by New York Labor Law §§ 650 et seq. They allege that defendants maintained a common practice of not paying gratuities or overtime to any of their employees and seek this certification to bring their claims on behalf of all drivers employed by defendants during the six-year limitations period set by Labor Law § 663.
In order to be granted certification pursuant to CPLR §§ 901-909, plaintiffs bear the burden of providing evidence that all criteria prescribed by the statute are met. CLC/CFI Liquidating Trust v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 50 AD3d 446 (2008). CPLR § 901(a) lists five prerequisites to certification: (1) that a proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) that common questions of law or fact predominate among the [*2]class members; (3) that the claims brought by the proposed representatives are typical of the claims of the class; (4) that the proposed representatives are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and (5) that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy (emphasis added). See, CPLR § 901(a). Because plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish the § 901(a)(5) superiority prerequisite, this court need not reach the other four prerequisites.
CPLR § 902 further clarifies §901(a)(5) by identifying factors a certifying court should consider in determining whether a class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication. These include: (1) the interests of members of the class in instituting separate actions, (2) the impracticability or efficiency of prosecuting separate actions, and (3) the extent or nature of any other litigation already commenced by any member of the class regarding the controversy. CPLR § 902's factors overlap with CPLR § 901(a)(5) and are seen as implicit in the superiority prerequisite. See, e.g. Gilman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 404 N.Y.S.2d 258, 264 (NY Sup. 1978).
Three of the CPLR § 902 considerations militate against certification in this case. First, other litigation has already resulted in settlement between the defendants and many, if not all, of the members of the proposed class. Following a previous Department of Labor ("DOL") investigation, defendants were ordered to remit misappropriated tips, unpaid wages, and illegal deductions to thirty-one of their employees, including all five plaintiffs named herein. That settlement covered a period from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2007 (though some individual awards indicate that they cover a period as late as June 30, 2008), comprising the entire time that three of the five named plaintiffs worked for the defendants. The claims brought by at least thirty-one members of the proposed class have, therefore, been at least partially settled. In the case of some proposed class members, including three of the five named plaintiffs, complete relief has already been given. Reduane Jaduad, Mohammad Tariq, and Anwar Khan received awards covering their full period of employment. Their present request for interest which was not included in those awards is precluded by the language of the DOL settlement, which states that the claims it covers are "resolved in full . . ." See, Defendant's Exhibit A.
Second, the DOL settlement's successful resolution of the pre-2007 claims suggests that an administrative resolution to whatever claims remain against the defendants would be more efficient than a class action lumping all claims together. The complaint alleges that various percentages of tips and wages were withheld at various times for each named plaintiff. Examining each employee's time sheets and tax returns to determine exactly what the defendants may have withheld and when, is the kind of individualized fact-finding better left to administrative hearings.
Third, the size of the payments remitted to each employee in the DOL settlement suggests that even without another all-encompassing administrative investigation, each individual member of the proposed class would have an incentive to bring a separate claim. Awards in that settlement ranged from a low of $800 to over $40,000, more than enough to warrant litigating or requesting a DOL hearing. Labor Law § 663 provides that any employee with a claim for unpaid overtime may bring a civil action against his/her employer and recover [*3]costs and fees or, alternatively, the commissioner may bring an action on the employee's behalf at no cost to him/her. Whatever claims Kamal Khan and Matthew Chaine have against the defendants that are not covered by the prior DOL settlement can be pursued more efficiently through either of those alternatives. They or any other proposed class member may also file a complaint against the defendants for a new DOL investigation pursuant to Labor Law § 196-a.
In summary, previous litigation on the claims contained in the complaint and the existence of an efficient administrative alternative indicate that a class action would not be the most expedient way to fairly adjudicate this controversy. Upon consideration of the CPLR § 902 factors, it is clear that plaintiffs have failed to establish that the superiority prerequisite of CPLR § 901(a)(5) has been met. As such, certification cannot be granted.
Accordingly, the motion by plaintiffs for class certification is denied.
Dated: July 29, 2011____________________________________
J.S.C.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
