. 5 See Raskin v. Corsi, 60 N.Y.S.2d 400, 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946). Case 1:11-cv-03110-RJS Document 25 Filed 10/28/11 Page 24 of 37 17 d to preclude an employer from taking any part of a gratuity, without any amendments to sections 190(1) or 198. See N.Y. Lab. Law. § 196-d (added by L.1968, c. 1007, § 1).

N.Y. Lab. Law § 190(7) (McKinney 2012); 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 142-3.12(c)(2) (2012). While it is generally accepted that RNs perform professional duties within the meaning of both of these exemptions, the NYLL requires that such professionals must earn more than $900 per week in order to meet the exemption during the time that plaintiffs were employed.13 N.Y. Lab. Law § 190(7). Accordingly, an analysis of whether each RN in the putative class meets this exemption would require an examination of both their duties and their weekly earnings on an employee-by-employee and week-by-week basis.

The term “wages” is defined broadly to encompass all “earnings of an employee for labor or labor services rendered, regardless of whether the amount of earning is determined on a time, piece, commission or other basis.” N.Y. Labor Law § 190(1). Here, as alleged in the Complaint, Defendants violated Section 193 by withholding Mr. Cloke-Browne’s Guaranteed Minimum Bonus and Deferred Compensation following his termination.

By way of contrast, section 190 broadly defines “employer” as “any person, corporation, limited liability company, or association employing any individual in any occupation, industry, trade, business or service.” N.Y. LABOR LAW § 190(3) (emphasis added). By using far less expansive language in defining “principals” in section 191-a, the Legislature clearly indicated that the protections of section 191-c would only apply to independent contractors retained by certain employers.

...........................................................10 United Intern. Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf (Holdings), Ltd., 988 F.Supp. 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)......................................................................................11, 12 Case 1:15-cv-03852-RA Document 18 Filed 07/10/15 Page 4 of 26 -iv- Woori Bank v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 12-cv-3868 (KBF), 2014 WL 3844778 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), rev’d on other grounds 2015 WL 1810835 (2nd Cir. Apr 22, 2015) ................................................................4 Zolotar v. New York Life Ins. Co., 172 A.D.2d 27 (1st Dept. 1991) ...............................................................................................19 Statutes New York Labor Law Article 6 ...............................................................................................16, 18 New York Labor Law § 190 ..........................................................................................................16 New York Labor Law § 190(c) ......................................................................................................17 New York Labor Law § 191 ..........................................................................................................17 New York Labor Law § 193 ..........................................................................................................17 New York Labor Law § 198-c .......................................................................................................17 Other Authorities Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) ...............................................................................................5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................5 Case 1:15-cv-03852-RA Document 18 Filed 07/10/15 Page 5 of 26 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This case arises out of a Consulting Agreement dated January 17, 2011 (the “Agreement”) between Plaint

General Release. “… Employee hereby releases the Company, its managers and owners from any and all causes of action or claims that Employee has had, now has or may have up to the date of this Agreement including, but not limited to, those arising out of or in connection with Employee’s employment or any claims for unpaid compensation, at common law or pursuant to any federal, state, or local employment laws, statutes, public policies, orders or regulations, including without limitation, the Fair Labor Standards Act, … the New York Labor Law § 190, et seq., specifically including all state wage and hour claims …” (Brake Declaration, Exhibits A, B, D.) Under New York law, general releases are governed by principles of contract law. Lewis v. NYC Dept. of Educ., Civ. No. 12-cv-675, 2013 WL 5405534, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2013) (granting motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims were released by valid settlement agreement).

On the same day, Atlas filed its Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Counterclaims. In response, Crosby dropped his counterclaims for violation of New York Labor Law § 190 et seq. and attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act but added a claim for breach of contract or, in the alternative, quantum meruit or unjust enrichment in Defendants’ First Amended Counterclaim filed on February 13, 2015. Both Defendants maintain their claim for attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

......................................................... ........ 446 Unreported Hours........................................................................................... ........ 448 Individual Liability of Guillerault and Ruzzo........................................................... ........ 449 Unjust Enrichment.................................................................................................. ........ 451 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ ........ 452 *428 I. INTRODUCTION Brett Johnson (“plaintiff”) brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Wave Comm GR LLC (“Wave Comm”), and its two owners, Robert Guillerault (“Guillerault”) and Richard Ruzzo (“Ruzzo”) (collectively “defendants”) alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–219 (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 190–191. Plaintiff claims Wave Comm failed to properly compensate Wave Comm installation technicians (“installers”) for overtime work. Defendants deny any violations of the FLSA or NYLL and counterclaim for unjust enrichment.

Nilsen v. Oregon State Motor Assoc., 248 Ore. 133; 432 P.2d 512 (1967) .................................................................................................6 Stein v. Guardsmark LLC, 2013 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 103131 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2013) .....................................................8, 9, 10 Van v. Language Line Services, 2016 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 73510 (N.D.Cal. June 6, 2016) ............................................................... 7-8 ViaHealth v. Johnson, 2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 31547 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2009) ...............................................................7 Warnecke v. Nitrocision, LLC, 2012 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 170656*24 (D.Id. Nov. 29, 2012) ...............................................................8 Wills v. RadioShack Corp., 981 F.Supp.2d 245 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ...........................................................................................2, 7 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS New York Labor Law § 190 ........................................................................................................6, 7 New York Labor Law § 198-c .....................................................................................................6, 7 29 C.F.R. § 514.604 .....................................................................................................................6, 7 29 C.F.R. § 778.

dated December 14, 2016, the Declaration of Janine Stultz, dated December 14, 2016, the Declaration of Cristi-Ann Dash, dated December 13, 2016, the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and upon all of the papers and proceedings herein, the undersigned attorneys for Defendant Coach, Inc. (“Coach”) will move this Court, before the Honorable Denise L. Cote, United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Case 1:16-cv-03197-DLC Document 33 Filed 12/16/16 Page 1 of 2 -2- Street, New York, New York 10007, for an Order granting Coach’s Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and dismissing each of Plaintiff Danielle Dineley’s claims for overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and the New York Labor Law, N.Y. Lab. Law § 190 et seq. and § 650 et seq., and each of Plaintiff’s claims alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §8-101, et seq., and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: New York, New York December 16, 2016 Respectfully submitted, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By: /s/ Jonathan Stoler Jonathan Stoler Lindsay Colvin Scott T. Earl 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112-0015 Tel: (212) 653-8700 Fax: (212) 653-8701 Attorneys for Coach, Inc.