Kim v. WJ Grp. Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Gaitian v. D'Amico Indus.

    22-CV-6466 (PKC) (SJB) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 23, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Sanchez Flores v. El Bukanitas Inc., No. 22-CV-6751 (DG) (SJB), 2024 WL 1051161, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2024) (quoting Archie v. Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc., 997 F.Supp. 504, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)). Thus, “[t]he clear language of [FLSA] indicates that even a business engaged in purely intrastate activities [cannot] claim an exception from FLSA [enterprise] coverage if the goods its employees handle have moved in interstate commerce.” Kim v. WJ Grp. Inc., No. 18-CV-3833 (ILG) (RML), 2019 WL 1433080, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (quoting Donovan v. Scoles, 652 F.2d 16, 18 (9th Cir. 1981)); See Ethelberth, 91 F.Supp.3d at 355 (citing Jones, 2012 WL 3235784, at *4). “[I]t is ‘rarely difficult to establish' that an enterprise's employees have handled or worked on goods that have previously moved in interstate commerce. As the Supreme Court has said: ‘[I]f it is interstate commerce that feels the pinch, it does not matter how local the operation which applies the squeeze.'” Kim, 2019 WL 1433080, at *2 (citations omitted) (first quoting Jacobs v. N.Y. Foundling Hosp., 577 F.3d 93, 99 n.7 (2d Cir. 2009), then quoting Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 258 (1964)).

  2. Kwangmin Ahn v. Sun Cleaners Inc.

    19-CV-5919 (DLI) (PK) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2022)   Cited 16 times

    These allegations satisfy the enterprise coverage test, and Sun Cleaners is an employer for FLSA purposes. See Kim v. WJ Grp. Inc., No. 18-CV-3833 (ILG)(RML), 2019 WL 1433080, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (on motion to dismiss, noting, “It would be quite exceptional indeed for any dry cleaners in this day and age to lack even the minimal nexus to interstate commerce required under the FLSA.”