Plaintiff's allegations in the SAC that the Individual Defendants are owners or otherwise opened Lash Moment Studio are sufficient to establish Lash Moment Studio's knowledge and notice of the alleged wage and hour violations. See, e.g., Mei Yue Gao v. Graceful Servs., Inc., No. 18 Civ. 4005 (SN), 2019 WL 5395514, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2019) (finding that claim that individual defendant was owner of predecessor entity and partial owner of successor entity was sufficient to allege that successor entity “had notice of the claims” under the substantial continuity test). Similarly, the allegation that Lash Princess is permanently closed supports the inference that it cannot provide relief.
Moreover, some courts have held that "[a] corporate successor may . . . be liable for certain violations when it had knowledge of its predecessor's acts giving rise to the claim," even if the successor did not have "actual notice" of the lawsuit. Mei Yue Gao v. Graceful Servs., Inc., No. 18-CV-4005, 2019 WL 5395514, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2019) (citing cases). The plaintiff's allegations plausibly suggest that the Centene defendants had notice of the misclassification policy.