MEMORANDUM & ORDER Defendant All Star Limousine Service, Ltd. moves for summary judgment against Plaintiff Joby John, who worked as a chauffeur for Defendant’s car service until July 27, 2017, and who alleges that Defendant failed to pay him for all hours worked, failed to pay him the required rate for overtime work, made improper deductions from his pay, and failed to provide him with required notices. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq., claim is barred by the “taxicab exemption,” because Plaintiff operated (1) “a chauffeured passenger vehicle;” (2) “available for hire by individual members of the general public;” and (3) had “no fixed schedule, fixed route, or fixed termini.” See Munoz-Gonzalez v. D.L.C. Limousine Serv., Inc., 904 F.3d 208, 210 (2d Cir. 2018).1 Thus, Defendant’s motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff’s FLSA claim. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background Defendant is a transportation service based in Long Island. (Plaintiff’s Counter-Statement of Material Facts (“Facts”), Dkt. 82, 1.)2 It “provides the general public with sedan, limousine[,] and bus transportation services in the New York and tristate area.” (Id. 2.) Defendant’s “chauffeurs drive paying members of the general public from a pick-up location of the customer’s choice to the customer’s requested destination of choice.” (Id. 5.) Defendant has a corporate account with a single company, which comprises “less than half of [Defendant's] business.” (Id. 82.) “Under that agreement, there are no recurrent rides, fixed routes, fixed termini or fixed schedules.” (Id. 83.) Otherwise, Defendant’s “[c]ustomers are not required to have a contract or account with [Defendant] or be associated with a business that has a contract or account with [Defendant].” (Id. 79.)3 Plaintiff was a “driver/chauffeur” for Defendant from July 2005 until July 2017. (Id. 6.) “Plaintiff would receive notice of available rides from a dispatcher and then drive to the customer’s chosen pick-up location from [Defendant's] facilities.” (Id. 9.) “The dispatcher [would] receive[] the pick-up and drop-off locations directly from the customer.” (Id. 10.) “Plaintiff would then drop the passenger off at their chosen location, which could be anywhere the passenger chose in the tri-state area.” (Id. 14.) “Plaintiff was not told to take a fixed or specific route for any particular job.” (Id. 15.) “Once a customer was dropped-off, the dispatcher would then give the chauffeur their next job.” (Id. 61.) II. Procedural Background On October 31, 2017, Plaintiff sued Defendant, alleging violations of FLSA and the New York Labor Law and its implementing regulations.4 (See generally Complaint, Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay him for all hours worked, failed to pay him the required rate for overtime work, made improper deductions from his pay, and failed to provide him with required notices. (See id.
