The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, the motion of defendants Citi Parking, Inc., Citi Parking Services LLC, Battery 17 Parking LLC, Ronald Massie, and/or any other related entities or individuals (together, “Defendants”) to dismiss is granted in part, in accord with the following memorandum decision. Background This case is a putative class action brought by plaintiff Noel Vargas (“Vargas” or “Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated who are presently or were formerly employed by the Defendants, pursuant to New York Labor Law Article 6 (§§191, 193, 195, 198) and Article 19 (§663), for unpaid overtime wages, failure to give wage theft notice, and other wage violations (Complaint 1). The complaint alleges that, beginning in January 2013 and continuing through the present, Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of failing to pay all wages owed to the named plaintiff, Noel Vargas, and all other similarly situated employees in violation of the New York Labor Law (id. 2). Vargas alleges that he worked as a driver, attendant, and valet at Defendants’ 17 Battery Place parking garage from March 2018 to December 2018 (id. 26).1 He typically worked five or six days per week and approximately nine hours each day or about 52 to 56 hours per week (id. 27). He was paid $13 to $14 an hour regardless of the number of hours worked, and his biweekly paychecks typically reflected approximately $700 to $800 for 80 hours of work regardless of the total number of hours worked (id. 28-29). He was then compensated in cash at the same flat hourly rate for some of the remaining hours worked, without being paid a time and a half premium (id. 30). By way of example, the complaint alleges that “if Plaintiff Vargas worked 112 hours in a biweekly period, his paycheck would reflect 80 hours of pay at his regular rate and some portion of the 32 overtime hours would be compensated at his regular hourly rate” (id. 31). Finally, Vargas alleges that “he was missing hours from his pay — both from his paychecks and his cash payments,” and that “Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Vargas overtime compensation, despite Plaintiff Vargas typically working between 52 and 56 hours per week” (id.
