You're viewing Docket Item 117 from the case Yang et al v. Shanghai Cafe Inc. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 1 of 37


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
ZU GUO YANG, XIAO HONG WANG, BAO
LAN DENG, CINDY CHAN, MOOI YANG, LING MEI
ZHANG,





Plaintiffs,

-against-











SHANGHAI CAFE INC., SHANGHAI CAFE
DELUXE INC., GRACE LAU, YUNG MEI KU,
PING LIN, JOSEPH TANG,


Defendants.





Case No. 1:10-cv-8372-LLS
ECF Case





----------------------------------------------------------------------X










MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT

SHANGHAI CAFÉ DELUXE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT







Law Offices of Joe Zhenghong Zhou and
Associates, PLLC
Attorney for Defendant
SHANGHAI CAFÉ DELUXE INC.
136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10H
Flushing, NY 11354







(718) 539-7098



Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 2 of 37

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT



Plaintiffs herein have brought this action as against Defendant Shanghai Café

Deluxe Inc. (hereinafter “Deluxe”) claiming successor liability for alleged violations under

the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law committed by

Defendant Shanghai Café. (See Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint dated December 30,

2010 annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”). Defendant Deluxe respectfully submits this

Memorandum of Law in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule

56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.



As a preliminary point, this Court must note that there is nothing in the record to

demonstrate any transactions between Shanghai Café and Defendant Deluxe such that

successor liability can be imputed to Defendant Deluxe for any alleged wrongful actions

committed by Shanghai Café. Defendant Deluxe simply leased a space from the owner

of the property that was previously occupied by Shanghai Café.



Furthermore, Defendant Deluxe did not and could not have notice of any alleged

violations committed by Shanghai Café since there were no transactions between the

parties. Thus, holding Defendant Deluxe liable for the alleged labor law violations

committed by Shanghai Café’s management would result in holding the wrong party

responsible for such violations and would not advance the deterrence effect intended by

federal and state labor laws.



Moreover, the Plaintiffs cannot present any genuine issues of fact on the issue of

whether Defendant Deluxe and Shanghai Café engaged in a de facto merger such that

Defendant Deluxe can be held as a successor corporation to Shanghai Café. There is no

question that the two entities have completely different ownership. While Grace Lau was



2

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 3 of 37

an owner of Shanghai Café, her brief and minimal involvement as a consultant to

Defendant Deluxe is insignificant to hold Defendant Deluxe as a successor corporation to

Shanghai Café.



As further proof that Defendant Deluxe is not a successor corporation to Shanghai

Café, Plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that Defendant Deluxe assumed any

liabilities necessary for the continuation of Shanghai Café’s business. Although

Defendant Deluxe has made minimal payments to continue receiving generic services

from service providers that previously served Shanghai Café, these services were merely

incidental to Deluxe’s business and could not be deemed necessary to continue

Shanghai Café’s business.



Moreover, Plaintiff Zu Guo Yang is barred from bringing this claim because the

record indicates that he had substantial authority over other employees such that he

cannot seek recovery under federal and state employment and labor laws. Defendant

Deluxe must be able to amend its Answer to assert affirmative defenses and

counterclaims as against Plaintiff Yang.



Finally, Plaintiffs’ claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act are barred because

Plaintiffs have not proffered any evidence to suggest that Shanghai Café’s gross annual

sales satisfy the statutory threshold under the FLSA.



Because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any triable issues of fact concerning

its claims against Defendant Deluxe and cannot show that Defendant Deluxe is a

successor corporation to Shanghai Café, this Court must grant summary judgment in

favor of Defendant Deluxe.







3

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 4 of 37

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A.

Defendant Deluxe and Its Lease to Occupy 100 Mott Street

Defendant Shanghai Café Deluxe Inc. (hereinafter “Deluxe” or “Defendant

Deluxe”) was incorporated on June 15, 2010 for the purpose of operating a Chinese

restaurant in the Chinatown area of Manhattan. The owners of Deluxe in charge of the

daily operations of the restaurant include Yi Li Weng, Wei Bo Li and Man Peng Ma.

Additional owners include Raymond Lau, Su Hung Tseng and Xin Sheng Gu. The

owners of Deluxe are not native English speakers, have only limited English proficiency,

and are not experienced business owners.

By lease agreement dated June 15, 2010, and with the assistance of Philip Lam, a

property manager and real estate broker, Defendant Deluxe entered into a lease

agreement with Lucky Horse Realty, Inc. to occupy and operate a restaurant at 100 Mott

Street (hereinafter the “premises”). (annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”).

Shanghai Café and Its Relationship with Luck Horse Realty

B.


Prior to Deluxe’s lease of the premises, an entity known as Shanghai Café

operated a Chinese restaurant business located at the premises. However, Shanghai

Café completely ceased its business activity at the premises, and on or about June 2010,

wholly abandoned all of its equipment, supplies and materials. As such, Lucky Horse

Realty, the owner of the premises, took possession of the equipment that was abandoned

by Shanghai Café. Lucky Horse Realty took this opportunity to lease the premises along

with all the equipment, supplies and material that were abandoned by Shanghai Café. In

fact, the broker involved in the signing of the lease agreement noted that because of high

value of the equipment left behind by Shanghai Café, the property owner did not require



4

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 5 of 37

any individual to personally guaranty Deluxe’s obligations under the lease agreement.

As such, Defendant Deluxe’s lease of the premises from Lucky Horse Realty

included not just the physical space to operate its restaurant business, but also the

property abandoned by Shanghai Café. This could only be possible because Lucky

Horse Realty took possession of the equipment abandoned by Shanghai Café.

Defendant Deluxe and Shanghai Café are Separate and
Distinct Entities That Did Not Engage in Any Transactions

C.



As noted above, there were two distinct occurrences involving the premises known

as 100 Mott Street relevant to this action – (1) Shanghai Café’s surrender of the premises

and all of its equipment to Lucky Horse Realty; and (2) Defendant Deluxe’s lease of the

premises from Lucky Horse Realty.

Defendant Deluxe and Shanghai Café did not enter into any agreements reflecting

a purchase and sale of Shanghai Café’s business or assets. Additionally, Shanghai Café

did not assign a lease or any other rights or liabilities to Defendant Deluxe, and Defendant

Deluxe did not assume a lease or any other rights or liabilities from Shanghai Café. There

was no lease assignment or lease assumption between Shanghai Café and Defendant

Deluxe. There were absolutely no written or verbal agreements, contracts, memoranda

or understanding between Defendant Deluxe and Shanghai Café concerning a lease or

any matter whatsoever.

Thus, there were no transactions between Defendant Deluxe and Shanghai Café,

and the only significant commonality that they share is the premises by which they

operated their respective businesses at different periods of time.

Furthermore, because there were no transactions between Deluxe and Shanghai



5

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 6 of 37

Café, Defendant Deluxe did not and could not have conducted any due diligence that

would reveal any of Shanghai Café’s liabilities, including any claim under federal and

state labor laws. Defendant Deluxe simply entered into an agreement with the owner of

100 Mott Street for use of the premises and equipment left behind by the prior occupants.

Grace Lau’s Limited Involvement in Deluxe’s Business

D.


Defendant Grace Lau (hereinafter “Grace Lau” or “Defendant Lau”) was an owner

and manager of Shanghai Café until it abandoned its business.1 However, as a person

experienced in the Chinese restaurant industry, Grace Lau was retained in an advisory

capacity to assist the significantly less experienced owners of Deluxe. Grace Lau’s duties

included accomplishing clerical tasks and advising on operating the restaurant.

Defendant Lau did not have any ownership interest in Deluxe and the record is

void of any indication that she had any authority to make substantial business decisions

on behalf of Deluxe. More importantly, the record reflects that Grace Lau was only acting

as a consultant for Deluxe for a period of three months.

1.

Grace Lau Had No Authority from Deluxe to Sign Bank Documents

Grace Lau indicated on documents issued by the Bank of East Asia that she was

the Secretary of Deluxe, and signed bank documents on behalf of Deluxe. However,

Defendant Deluxe never appointed or elected her to be its secretary nor allowed her to

claim that she was its secretary on any documents. (See Weng Affidavit at Paragraph 4,

annexed hereto).

The incident was nothing more than a simple mistake and misunderstanding by

Grace Lau, who has very limited English proficiency. Grace Lau was not aware of the


1 Defendant Grace Lau has not interposed an answer or otherwise appeared in this action. However, she was deposed
in this matter on November 3, 2011, and was present at an earlier Court conference on January 21, 2011.


6

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 7 of 37

documents she was signing and could not read that the documents indicated that she

was signing as

the secretary

for Deluxe. She did not sign

the document

contemporaneously with members of Deluxe and could not have known the meaning and

consequences of signing as Deluxe’s secretary. In fact, when members of Deluxe

discovered that Grace Lau had signed as secretary, they immediately corrected the

document and removed Grace Lau’s name as secretary of Deluxe.



Grace Lau Did Not Execute a Personal Guaranty for Deluxe’s
Obligations Under Its Lease Agreement with Lucky Horse Realty, Inc.

2.


Although Grace Lau was present at the signing of the lease agreement between



Deluxe and Lucky Horse Realty, she was not involved in the transaction and her

presence was unnecessary and unimportant. The lease agreement was executed by Wei

Bo Li, and not Grace Lau. Additionally Grace Lau did not execute a personal guaranty or

any other documents on behalf of or in support of Defendant Deluxe. She was simply

present at the signing in no significant capacity.

As such, Grace Lau’s involvement in Deluxe was minimal and insignificant for the

purposes of Plaintiffs’ claims.



Plaintiff Zu Guo Yang and the Other Plaintiffs

E.


Each of the Plaintiffs herein claims to be employed by Shanghai Café prior to its

owners’ abandonment of the business on or about June 2010. The record is void of any

indication that any of the Plaintiffs, or any other party, made any labor law related

complaints, allegations or claims against Shanghai Café.

The Court must note that Plaintiff Zu Guo Yang, who was employed as a chef at

Shanghai Café, also played an important management role for Shanghai Café, and that



7

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 8 of 37

his labor law related claims against Defendants must be barred. Plaintiff Yang was

responsible for setting schedules which employees had to follow, and had the authority to

report non-compliance by employees to the owners of Shanghai Café. Acting in a

management role for Shanghai Cafe, Plaintiff Yang’s labor law related claims against

Defendants are wholly without merit.

F.



The Instant Action

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint dated December 30, 2010, (annexed hereto as

Exhibit “A”) alleges that Defendants committed several violations under the Fair Labor

Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. By Answer dated April 7, 2011 (annexed

hereto as Exhibit “C”) Defendant Deluxe responded to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint,

denying any liability for alleged wrongful acts committed by Shanghai Café.



Defendant Deluxe previously moved this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended

Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. By Opinion and Order dated March 23,

2011, this Court held that Plaintiffs’ have sufficiently alleged that a successor relationship

between Shanghai Café and Defendant Deluxe. (Opinion and Order annexed hereto as

Exhibit “D”)



After extensive discovery, including numerous depositions, Plaintiffs have failed to

meet their burden to show that Defendant Deluxe is a successor corporation to Shanghai

Café, and have failed to raise any genuine triable issues of fact. Defendant Deluxe now

moves this Court to grant summary judgment in its favor.

THE STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56



It is well settled that summary judgment is appropriate only "if the movant shows

that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to



8

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 9 of 37

judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute of fact is "genuine" if the

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving

party. SCR Joint Venture L.P. v. Warshawsky, 559 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2009). A

"material" fact is one that might "affect the outcome of the suit under the governing

law." Id. The moving party bears "the burden of demonstrating that no material fact

exists." Miner v. Clinton Cnty., New York, 541 F.3d 464, 471

(2d Cir.

2008) (citing McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 202 (2d Cir. 2007)).



In resolving this inquiry, the Court must construe "the evidence in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's

favor." Sledge v. Kooi, 564 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 247-50, 255 (1986)); see also Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d

713, 718-22 (2d Cir. 2002) (noting that on summary judgment, a court must "resolve all

ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the non-movant" (citing Brown v.

Henderson, 257 F.3d 246, 251 (2d Cir. 2001)). In opposing a motion for summary

judgment,

the non-moving party may not rely on "conclusory allegations or

unsubstantiated speculation," Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir. 1998), or on

mere denials or unsupported alternative explanations of its conduct. See SEC v.

Grotto, No. 05 Civ. 5880, 2006 WL 3025878, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2006).



Rather, the non-moving party must set forth significant, probative evidence on

which a reasonable fact-finder could decide in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57. To

avoid summary judgment, the non-moving party must present a showing of sufficient

evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute as to require a judge or jury's resolution



9

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 10 of 37

of the parties' differing versions of the truth. See Kessler v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of

Soc. Servs., 461 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49).



As more fully set forth below, Plaintiffs’ have not and cannot present any significant

evidence on which a reasonable fact-finder can determine that Defendant Deluxe is a

successor corporation to Shanghai Café or otherwise responsible for Shanghai Café’s

conduct. As such, Defendant Deluxe cannot be held liable for any alleged violations of

labor laws committed by Shanghai Café, and thus the Court must grant summary

judgment in favor of Defendant Deluxe.

ARGUMENTS

A.





DEFENDANT DELUXE IS NOT A SUCCESSOR CORPORATION TO
SHANGHAI CAFÉ AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE NEW YORK
COMMON LAW STANDARD AS EXPRESSED BY THE COURT IN MILLER

Its is well settled that under New York law that “as a general rule, when one

corporation sells or otherwise transfers all its assets to another company, the acquiring

corporation does not become responsible for the debts and liabilities of the transferor.”

Miller v. Forge Mench Partnership Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1524, 55 U.C.C. Rep. Serv.

2d (Callaghan) 1022 at *20; see also Cargo Partner AG v. Albatrans, Inc., 352 F.3d 41, 45

(2d Cir. 2003); Lumbard v. Maglia, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 1529, 1534 (S.D.N.Y. 1985);

Fitzgerald v. Fahnestock & Co., 286 A.D.2d 573, 574, 730 N.Y.S.2d 70, 71 (1st Dep't

2001).



However, it is further well settled that a successor firm may be held liable for the

obligations of its predecessor if any of the following conditions is present: (i) the purchaser

expressly or impliedly agrees to assume such debts or liabilities; (ii) the transaction

amounts to a de facto merger or consolidation of the seller and purchaser; (iii) the



10

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 11 of 37

purchasing corporation is a mere continuation of the selling corporation; or (iv) the

transaction is entered into fraudulently to escape liability for such obligations. Miller at

*21; see also Cargo Partner, 352 F.3d at 45; Lumbard, 621 F. Supp. at 1534-35;

Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co., 59 N.Y.2d 239, 245, 464 N.Y.S.2d 437, 440 (1983).

In this case, there have been no allegation and no evidence by Plaintiffs of any

express or implied agreement to assume any debts or liabilities of Shanghai Café by

Deluxe. There are no allegation and no proof that there was any fraudulent transaction

that may have been entered into for the purposes of escaping liability for any obligations.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ case against Deluxe alleges a de facto merger or consolidation

of the seller and purchaser, or alternatively alleges that the purchasing corporation

Deluxe is a mere continuation of the selling corporation Shanghai Café.



To demonstrate whether a transaction amounts to a de facto merger or a mere

continuation of the selling corporation under the second and third elements of the above

test, “courts consider (1) continuity of ownership; (2) cessation of ordinary business by the

predecessor; (3) assumption by the successor of liabilities ordinarily necessary for

continuation of the predecessor's business; and (4) continuity of management, personnel,

physical location, assets, and general business operation." Miller at *23; see also Nettis v.

Levitt, 241 F.3d 186, 193-94 (2d Cir. 2001).



The Court should note that each of the above elements concerning successor

liability requires some sort of transaction between a corporation and a subsequent entity

for which claimants are attempting to impute liability. Before making a determination as to

whether an entity is liable for conduct of a prior corporation, the facts must show that there

was an assignment of lease and an assumption of the same lease, an assignment of any



11

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 12 of 37

other legal rights and obligations and an assumption of such rights and obligations, a sale

and purchase, or some legal interaction between the entities that constitutes a

transaction. Plaintiffs here have failed to produce any evidence that Shanghai Café

assigned its lease to Defendant Deluxe or Defendant Deluxe assumed Shanghai Café’s

original lease with the landlord so that a transaction between Shanghai Café and

Defendant Deluxe did actually occur. Unlike the facts in Miller, Plaintiffs here have not and

cannot show any such transaction between Shanghai Café and Defendant Deluxe such

that the Court can entertain any argument concerning the imposition of successor liability

upon Defendant Deluxe.

Alternatively even if the Court were inclined to find that a transaction occurred

between Shanghai Café and Deluxe just for the purpose of determining the success of

the motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs still fail to meet other elements in the

standard for a de facto merger set in Miller. In order to provide evidence that would "…

determine whether such a `de facto merger' or `mere continuation' of the predecessor's

business has occurred, courts consider (1) continuity of ownership; (2) cessation of

ordinary business by the predecessor; (3) assumption by the successor of liabilities

ordinarily necessary for continuation of the predecessor's business; and (4) continuity of

management, personnel, physical location, assets, and general business operation."

Miller at *23; see also Nettis v. Levitt, 241 F.3d 186, 193-94 (2d Cir. 2001).



As set forth below, the record is clear that Defendant Deluxe is not a successor

corporation to Shanghai Café under the test used in New York, and Plaintiffs have not

and cannot raise any genuine triable issues of fact on such issue.



12

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 13 of 37




1. Defendant Deluxe Did Not and Could Not Expressly or
Impliedly Assume any of Shanghai Café’s Liabilities





Plaintiffs have failed to show evidence that proves a de facto merger or

consolidation or mere continuation from one entity to the next. Indeed it is clear from the

deposition testimony of the real estate agent Phillip Lam of Lucky Horse Realty that there

was no underlying transaction between the old Shanghai Café restaurant and the current

Shanghai Café Deluxe restaurant.

As is clear from the deposition testimony of Deluxe’s secretary Yi Li Weng, there

never was a transaction between Shanghai Café and Shanghai Café Deluxe. Rather,

there was an abandonment of the prior lease by Shanghai Café, and after such

abandonment, Deluxe signed a new lease with the owner of the building. Because there

was no transaction between Shanghai Café and Deluxe, the Miller standard for a de facto

merger or consolidation of the seller and purchaser does not apply to this case. Ms.

Weng testified:

Q. Now, when Mr. Ma told you that he wanted to open a restaurant did he
tell you that he wanted to open it at 100 Mott Street?

A. In the beginning, no, he didn't say it but later on he did.

Q. At the beginning what did Mr. Ma tell you about the restaurant that he
wanted to open?

A. He said that he got some information, he heard someone saying that
there was a store or restaurant and wanted to lease -- there was a Shanghai
restaurant -- not a Shanghai restaurant, just a restaurant, a restaurant and
didn't and to do business anymore and wanted to do the business over
there.

(See Weng’s Deposition Transcript at 91:18 – 92:10 annexed hereto as Exhibit

13



“E”).




Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 14 of 37







Q. Is it your belief that the old restaurant abandoned that space?

A. Yes. A lot of thing were broken.

Q. Besides table and chairs, what other things were left over from the old
restaurant?

A. What else?

Q. Was there kitchen equipment?

A. Yes.


(See Weng’s Deposition Transcript at 239:3-11 annexed hereto as Exhibit “E”).

Plaintiffs have not and cannot offer any evidence of an agreement, assignment,

purchase and sale or any other type of transaction between Shanghai Café and

Defendant Deluxe.






2. There was No De Facto Merger Between Defendant Deluxe and Shanghai
Café, and Defendant Deluxe is Not a Mere Continuation of Shanghai Café

As noted above, a transaction amounts to a de facto merger or mere continuation

of a predecessor entity if there is (1) continuity of ownership; (2) cessation of ordinary

business by the predecessor; (3) assumption by the successor of liabilities ordinarily

necessary for continuation of the predecessor's business; and (4) continuity of

management, personnel, physical location, assets, and general business operation.

Each of these factors will be discussed to demonstrate that there is no possibility that the

facts can be construed to show a de facto merger between Defendant Deluxe and

Shanghai Café or that Defendant Deluxe is a mere continuation of the Shanghai Café.







14

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 15 of 37









a. There is No Continuity of Ownership Between
Defendant Deluxe and Shanghai Café

Plaintiffs have failed to show any continuity of ownership between any of the

owners of Shanghai Café and the owners of Deluxe. They have tried to imply that the

former ownership of Shanghai Café has an ownership stake in Deluxe, but they have not

shown any actual ties between them.



Plaintiffs mischaracterize the documentation that was retrieved from the Bank of

East Asia. Plaintiffs make much of the fact that one of the former owners of Shanghai

Café, Grace Lau, was listed on some of the initial documents submitted to the Bank of

East Asia; but Plaintiffs do not mention that Grace Lau was explicitly not included in the

revised final versions of these documents that were submitted to the bank on September

13, 2010. Grace Lau even mentions in her deposition that she did not have a complete

understanding of the documents that she had initially signed for the Bank of East Asia.

(See generally, Lau’s Deposition Transcript at pg. 123 annexed hereto as Exhibit “F”)



Plaintiffs also cannot ignore the note that was sent to Bank of East Asia on which

explicitly states that Wei Bo Li and not Grace Lau will be the secretary of Shanghai Café

Deluxe. This document shows unambiguously that Grace Lau is not a shareholder or a

manager of Deluxe. See Note to Bank of East Asia annexed hereto as Exhibit “G”.



Plaintiffs claim that Shanghai Café’s former owner Grace Lau was involved in

negotiating the lease of the property for Deluxe. This is shown to be false by the

deposition of Phillip Lam, the real estate agent from Lucky Horse Realty whose testimony

was demanded by the Plaintiffs to support their allegations of malfeasance by Deluxe in

producing documents for discovery. Instead the deposition testimony of Phillip Lam



15

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 16 of 37

showed that Grace Lau was present at the signing of a new lease because the owner of

the property wanted to have the ownership of the former tenant Shanghai Café serve as a

guarantor for Deluxe’s lease.



Phillip Lam testified in his deposition that Lucky Horse Realty normally seeks a

guarantor for a lease that is granted to a new startup business. He stated in his

deposition that for most of the leases that Lucky Horse Realty grants, if someone has no

record or is not familiar to them, then they ask for either six months security deposit or for

someone to guarantee the lease. (See Lam’s Deposition Transcript at pg. 97 annexed

hereto as Exhibit “H”). His deposition testimony makes clear that he was able to convince

the owner of 100 Mott Street to grant a lease to Shanghai Café Deluxe without having any

act as a guarantor for the lease because the value of the Shanghai Café Deluxe

restaurant is worth more money than the value of security deposit. Id.





b. Shanghai Café Ceased Doing Business in June 2010



There is no question that Shanghai Café ceased its ordinary business operations

and abandoned its business in early June 2010 and officially dissolved on September 17,

2010. The parties have not contested this fact, and thus, there is no issue of fact

concerning Shanghai Café’s cessation of business of operations. The cessation of

ordinary business by Shanghai Café is not in dispute; Shanghai Café closed their doors

and ended business for good on June 8, 2010.











c. Defendant Deluxe Did Not Assume any of Shanghai
Café’s Liabilities Ordinarily Necessary for the
Continuation of Shanghai Café’s Business

Under the standard set forth by the Court in Miller, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that

Deluxe assumed liabilities “ordinarily necessary for the continuation of predecessor’s



16

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 17 of 37

business” (emphasis added). The Court in Miller, citing Glynwed, Inc. v. Plastimatic, Inc.,

869 F. Supp. 265, 276-77 (D.N.J. 1994), noted that assuming liabilities under

manufacturing contracts would constitute an assumption of liabilities ordinarily necessary

for the continuation of the predecessor’s business. As such, the liabilities in question

must be specific to the particular business of the predecessor and not merely generic

liabilities that are incurred by every business.



In fact, the Miller Court found a successor corporation had assumed the liabilities

of a predecessor entity ordinarily necessary for the continuation of predecessor’s clothing

business by assuming a debt under the same terms with the predecessor’s creditor

secured by accounts receivables and inventory of the predecessor entity. The liabilities

assumed by the successor corporation, namely loans secured by receipts and clothing

inventory, was specific to the predecessor’s business operations.



Additionally, in the Miller case, the successor corporation had assumed $5.8

million of the predecessor’s debt, demonstrating that an assumption of debt cannot be de

minimis for the successor to be held liable for the debts of a predecessor.



Here, Plaintiffs have not shown any facts, and cannot show any facts, suggesting

an assumption of liability because Shanghai Café did not assign any of its rights or

liabilities to Deluxe, and Defendant Deluxe did not accept any such rights and liabilities.

Additionally, Defendant Deluxe did not purchase Shanghai Café’s business and did not

have any interactions with Shanghai Café to suggest a transaction between the two

entities.







17

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 18 of 37












i. Defendant Deluxe Did Not Satisfy any Sums Owed
By Shanghai Café to the Owner of the Premises

Here, Plaintiffs cannot show that Deluxe assumed any of Shanghai Café’s

liabilities ordinarily necessary for the continuation of Shanghai Café’s restaurant

business. The most significant liability for the continuation of a restaurant business where

customers dine is the lease for the space to operate such an establishment.



Yet Plaintiffs cannot cite to anything in the record to show that Deluxe paid off any

debts incurred by Shanghai Café under its lease with the landlord so that Deluxe can

continue leasing the same space from the landlord. In fact, Yi Li Weng, a principal of

Deluxe, clearly states in her affidavit that Defendant Deluxe made no payments in

satisfaction of any debt owed to the landlord under a lease agreement between Shanghai

Café and Lucky Horse Realty, Inc. (See Weng Affidavit at Paragraph 5, annexed hereto).

This statement is in accordance with the point we have made throughout this brief – that

there were no transactions between the Defendant Deluxe, and as such, no assumption

of any liabilities.












ii. Any Debts That Were Satisfied by Defendant Deluxe were
For Generic Services and Such Amounts were De Minimis

Plaintiffs have placed an emphasis during discovery to the fact that Deluxe paid

telephone and electricity bills that were sent to Shanghai Café. Such liabilities are

generic and incurred by every business to operate any type of business, not just a

restaurant business. In fact, such services operate mostly as a monopoly in New York

City, leaving Deluxe little or no option to obtain these services from any other provider.



Plaintiffs even mischaracterize the facts surrounding Deluxe paying such bills. Ms.

Yi Li Weng, a principal of Deluxe, testified that she attempted to change the name on the



18

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 19 of 37

telephone bill and eventually changed service providers, demonstrating that the most

important concern for Deluxe would was to have uninterrupted services from utility

providers, and not to continue Shanghai Café’s business. On the issue of the change of

name on the telephone bill, Ms Weng testified:

Q. So is it your testimony that you filled out some kind of change form with
the service carrier for the telephone line and that after a few months that
service provider made those changes?

A. No. When they sent us the bill, attached to the bill and there is
something at the bottom that if you need to change the name or something
you can write down the information and then send the check over. And then
later on we changed the service carrier because we think that -- we thought
that the carrier was not good.

Q. Okay. So for at least a couple months you, Shanghai Cafe Deluxe was
paying a telephone bill that was directed to Shanghai Cafe before the
telephone service provider made the changes that you requested?

A. Maybe not. I don't remember. I have to look. We tried to change it
immediately but I am not sure. I have to go look.

Q. Okay. I believe you testified earlier that you had requested a change
with the telephone company but it took a couple months for them to make
that change?

A. No. Every time that I received a bill and checked the box that said I
wanted to change the name.






(See Weng’s Deposition Transcript at 57:3-58:8 annexed hereto as Exhibit “E”).

As unsophisticated business owners, the principals of Deluxe could not have been

aware of the importance of changing the names on the accounts for services common to

every business and would have found it unusual and disruptive to cease such services

just to start these services again under a different name. In any case, the sums paid by

Deluxe to continue to receive utilities were de minis and does not show any attempt to

assume Shanghai Café’s liabilities to continue Shanghai Café’s business.



19

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 20 of 37



Additionally, Plaintiffs are unable to use the fact that Deluxe paid off sums owed to

sanitation services and food safety services to show that Deluxe assumed any of

Shanghai Café’s liabilities. Again, Deluxe’s only concern was to have uninterrupted

service so that it can operate a restaurant business as any disruption would have had a

negative impact on its business. Moreover, sanitation and food safety services are

merely incidental to Deluxe’s business and are not as necessary to Deluxe’s business as

the space it needs to operate a dine-in restaurant, for which Deluxe clearly did not

assume any of Shanghai Café’s liabilities.



Sanitation and food safety services are common in the restaurant business, and

thus should not be seen as an assumption of a prior business’ vending relationship.

Unlike the Miller case, where Defendant had no choice but to pay off the creditor of the

prior business to continue its own operations, here, Deluxe had the choice of selecting

several sanitation and food safety services but may have chosen the same providers as

Shanghai Café simply for convenience.



Moreover, any sums paid to such providers are de minis and would not constitute

an assumption of liabilities ordinarily necessary to continue Shanghai Café’s restaurant

business. Plaintiffs are unable to make any comparison to the facts in Miller where a

successor corporation satisfied a $5.8 million debt of its predecessor to continue the

predecessor’s business. As such, Plaintiffs cannot show that Deluxe assumed Shanghai

Café’s liabilities such that a de facto merger between the two entities could be assumed.









20

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 21 of 37







d. Plaintiffs are Unable to Show Any Continuity of Management
or Personnel to Satisfy the Test for a De Facto Merger or
Continuation of Shanghai Café’s Business





Finally, Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendant Deluxe enjoyed a continuity of

management, personnel, physical location and general business operations is not based

on any facts in the record. The Court in Miller held that a continuity of management and

personnel existed when the upper management of a successor corporation was largely

the same as the predecessor entity. The Court concluded that the management was

largely the same when the record showed that the predecessor and successor entities

had the same president, comptroller, chief financial officer and three other officers.



Here, Plaintiffs have mischaracterized the facts and have wrongfully alleged that

Deluxe and Shanghai Café share largely the same management and personnel.



Plaintiffs have not alleged that Deluxe and Shanghai Café share the same

president, comptroller, chief financial officer or any other upper management. Although

Grace Lau assisted Deluxe for a very brief period of time, her role in Defendant Deluxe’s

business was limited and insufficient to conclude a continuity of management and

personnel. Man Peng Ma, another principal of Deluxe, even testified that he did not know

Ms. Lau and that he did not know that Ms. Lau was a previous owner of the old Shanghai

Café restaurant. (See Ma’s Deposition Transcript at pages 20-21 annexed hereto as

Exhibit “I”).



Shanghai Café and Shanghai Café Deluxe did not have any managers or officers

in common, and only a small number of workers in common. Plaintiffs are thus unable to

show that Shanghai Café and Shanghai Café Deluxe shared “largely the same personnel.”





Moreover, the facts surrounding Deluxe’s acquisition of the restaurant simply do

21

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 22 of 37

not indicate a continuity of assets or operations such that a de facto merger of the two

entities could be inferred. Shanghai Café had ceased operating as a restaurant and

completely abandoned its business operations along with assets such as its machinery

and kitchen equipment. Thus, the restaurant and equipment was abandoned to the

landlord, who then leased the premises to Deluxe. Shanghai Café had no interaction with

Deluxe and did not assign its lease, nor did Defendant Deluxe accept any such

assignment. As such, there is no indication that Deluxe assumed any of Shanghai Café’s

liabilities under Shanghai Café’s lease agreement with the landlord.



Applying the Miller standard to the instant case, there was no de facto merger

between Defendant Deluxe and the abandoned Shanghai Café restaurant, and

Defendant Deluxe cannot be seen as a mere continuation of the abandoned Shanghai

Café restaurant. There is no continuity of ownership between Defendant Deluxe and

shanghai café. It is undisputed that Shanghai Café ceased doing business in june 2010.

It cannot be shown that Defendant Deluxe assumed any of Shanghai Café’s liabilities

ordinarily necessary for the continuation of Shanghai Café’s business, and plaintiffs are

unable to show any continuity of management or personnel to satisfy the test for a de

facto merger or continuation of Shanghai Café’s business.






3. Plaintiffs Have Not Shown that Any Alleged
Transaction Was Entered Into Fraudulently

Even assuming that the Deluxe and Shanghai Café had entered into transactions

for the purpose of transferring Shanghai Café’s business, Plaintiffs have not and cannot

claim that any such transaction was entered into for the purpose of avoiding any liability

under any federal or state labor law. In fact, Plaintiffs have not shown that the principals



22

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 23 of 37

of Shanghai Café or Deluxe had sufficient notice of any potential claim by Plaintiffs and

that they engaged in an alleged transaction to avoid such liability. Plaintiffs did not bring

this claim until November 2010, nearly five months after Defendant Deluxe began its

operations on the premises.



As such, under the standard set forth in Miller, there are no facts in the record for a

reasonable jury to find that Defendant Deluxe was a successor corporation to Shanghai

Café, and Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate Defendant Deluxe was a successor corporation

to Shanghai Café. Thus, this Court must grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant

Deluxe as a matter of law.

B.




Defendant Deluxe is Not a Successor Entity to Shanghai
Café Even Under the Broader Substantial Continuity Test

The Southern District recently held in Battino v. Cornelia Fifth Ave, et. al. 861

F.Supp.2d 392 (SDNY 2012), that in the context of employment and labor issues,

including claims made under the FLSA, the Court should apply the broader ”substantial

continuity” test to determine whether an entity assumes the liabilities its predecessor

incurred under employment and labor laws.



Although there are numerous factors the Court can use to make this

determination, the two most important factors include (1) whether the successor had

notice of the claim before the acquisition and (2) whether there was substantial continuity

in the operations of the business before and after such acquisition. Battino 861

F.Supp.2d at 401 citing Rowe Entm't, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 98 Civ. 8272,

2005 WL 22833, at *79 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2005). Additionally, the Court will look to

whether the predecessor has the ability to provide relief directly to the claimants. Id.



23

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 24 of 37



The remaining factors that the Court can use to determine successor liability in a

labor law claim include whether the new employer uses the same plant; whether he uses

the same or substantially the same work force; whether he uses the same or substantially

the same supervisory personnel; whether the same jobs exist under substantially the

same working conditions; whether he uses the same machinery, equipment, and

methods of production; and whether he produces the same product. Battino 861

F.Supp.2d at 404 citing EEOC v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc., 503 F.2d 1086,

1094 (6th Cir. 1974). These additional factors simply inform whether there was a

continuity of business operations between the entities. Battino 861 F.Supp.2d at 404

citing Musikiwamba v. ESSI, Inc., 760 F.2d 740 (7th Cir.1985).



The Court in Battino held that an entity was a successor corporation for the

purposes of employment and labor law claims, partially due to the fact that it had notice of

a potential claim by its predecessor’s employees. Specifically, the purchaser in that case

admitted to knowing that the prior entity failed to pay its employees for at least two

months, and more importantly, that this information was used in negotiating various

representations and indemnification provisions of the asset purchase agreement. The

Court held that in light of the new entity’s knowledge of such employment and labor law

related liabilities, the notice requirement of the substantial continuity test had been

satisfied. The Court noted that “this is not a case of an "innocent purchaser" who

"exercised due diligence and

failed

to uncover evidence" of any potential

liability. Musikiwamba, 760 F.2d at 750, 752. Rather, SCFAL was fully aware of the

potential liabilities to the unpaid employees and attempted to negotiate the APA

accordingly.” Battino 861 F.Supp.2d at 407.



24

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 25 of 37



The Court further noted that an important policy consideration for the notice

requirement of the substantial continuity test is to “ensure fairness by guaranteeing that a

successor had an opportunity to protect against liability by negotiating a lower price or

indemnity clause. Battino 861 F.Supp.2d at 406, citing Steinbach v. Hubbard, 51 F.3d

843, 845,846 (9th Cir. 1995) and Musikiwamba v. ESSI, Inc., 760 F.2d 740, 752 (7th Cir.

1985).



Similar to the facts in Miller, the Battino case involved circumstances where one

entity purchased another entity. Again, in the instant action, unlike both the Miller and

Battino cases, there was no purchase, assignment or any agreement between Shanghai

Café and Defendant Deluxe that can be construed as a transaction.

Additionally, as more fully demonstrated below, Defendant Deluxe could not have

been on notice of this lawsuit, or any potential claim brought by the Plaintiffs herein.

Furthermore, there is no continuity of operations between the two entities. Finally,

Plaintiffs can obtain relief from the principals and management of Shanghai Café. Thus,

there can be no successor liability for Defendant Deluxe under the substantial continuity

test.






1.


Defendant Deluxe Had No Notice of Plaintiffs
Claims Prior to the Commencement of this Lawsuit

Simply put, Defendant Deluxe could not have had any notice of any prior claims or

lawsuit concerning any employment or labor disputes that took place at Shanghai Cafe

because Defendant Deluxe did not purchase or otherwise engage in any transaction with

Shanghai Deluxe. Because there was no transactions between the entities, there was no

opportunity for Deluxe to conduct any due diligence or make any inquires as to any of

Shanghai Café’s liabilities, including any potential lawsuit concerning employment and


25

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 26 of 37

labor law related matters. (See Weng Affidavit at Paragraphs 6 through 12, annexed

hereto).



Moreover, regardless of whether there was a transaction between the entities,

Defendant Deluxe would have been in a position similar to the “innocent purchaser”

described in Battino where the purchaser or acquirer innocently fails to uncover evidence

of potential liability. Unlike the Defendant in Battino who had personal knowledge of

violations of labor laws by its predecessor entity, here, Defendant Deluxe was not told

about any potential violations or claims by any member of Shanghai Café or anyone else.

(See Weng Affidavit at Paragraphs 8 and 9, annexed hereto). Additionally, Defendant

Deluxe could not have been aware of such alleged practices at Shanghai Café because

Deluxe never observed such practices. (See Weng Affidavit at Paragraphs 6 and 7,

annexed). In fact, the first time Defendant Deluxe was put on notice of any claims brought

by Plaintiffs was when they received Plaintiffs complaint on or about November 2010,

several months after Shanghai Café had dissolved and Deluxe began its business. (See

Weng Affidavit at Paragraph 12, annexed hereto).



Plaintiffs have not and cannot offer any evidence to the contrary. Any argument

made by Plaintiff that Grace Lau had any notice of Plaintiffs’ claims and that such notice

can be imputed to Defendant Deluxe is without merit. Grace Lau testified as following on

this matter:

Q. Okay. So you were aware that there was a lawsuit possibly being filed
because the employees of your old restaurant threatened to file a lawsuit?
Is that what you're saying?

A. In January the sanitation department came and inspect the restaurant. At
that time the main chef, the cook, he tried to do something that would violate
the laws so that then -- then we would -- the restaurant would be -- would be



26

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 27 of 37

-- would be under pressure and then they would be forced to be closed. And
then we would have -- then there would be a lawsuit following.


(See Lau’s Deposition Transcript at 16:11-23 annexed hereto as Exhibit “F”).

Thus, Grace Lau’s only knowledge of a lawsuit was concerning a possible health





or environmental action commenced by city authorities and nothing even remotely related

to the employment and labor law related claims brought by Plaintiffs. Additionally,

because Grace Lau’s position in Deluxe was only that of an advisor on establishing and

running a restaurant, and was at Deluxe for a brief period of time, any knowledge that she

may have had about any of Shanghai Café’s liabilities cannot be imputed to Defendant

Deluxe.



Moreover, Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence that any principal of Defendant

Deluxe was on notice that some employees of Shanghai Café could potentially bring a

claim based on labor and employment laws. As such, there are no genuine material

issues of fact on whether Defendant Deluxe had notice of any claims asserted by

Plaintiffs.






2.


There is No Substantial Continuity in the Operations
of Defendant Deluxe and Shanghai Café

There could be no continuity between Shanghai Café and Defendant Deluxe

because they did not enter into any transactions or agreements by which Defendant

Deluxe bought or acquired Shanghai Café’s business. As noted above, Shanghai Café

abandoned its business and Defendant Deluxe entered into a lease agreement with the

property owner to rent this abandoned space. There were two unconnected transactions

relevant here - (1) Shanghai Café’s surrender of the premises and all of its equipment to

Lucky Horse Realty; and (2) Defendant Deluxe’s lease of the premises from Lucky Horse



27

Case 1:10-cv-08372-LLS Document 117 Filed 01/15/13 Page 28 of 37

Realty. As such, there was no existing business for Defendant Deluxe to continue. The

only commonality between Defendant Deluxe and Shanghai Café is that they both

operated a Chinese restaurant and were located at the same location.



Additionally, Defendant Deluxe is owned and operated by a completely different

group of people than Shanghai Café and do n