| Deliverymen Suing Matsu
Sushi Got Trial And Mostly Won Now Want
Default of Purple Sushi
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Sept 6 – Qiang Lu sued Matsu
Sushi of 483 Columbus Avenue
in Manhattan for failure to
pay overtime and to provide
required information "in
Chinese, [his] native
language." He and others
also sued Purple Sushi.
On
September 24, 2021 U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Magistrate Judge Katharine H.
Parker held a proceeding.
Inner City Press covered it, here.
In August 2022 came to trial,
as to Matsu Sushi, see below.
On
September 24, 2021, the Law
Offices of Vincent S. Wong,
for the defendants, asked for
an extension of time for
discovery, and got it.
Jump cut to
August 22, 2022 when the civil
trial began before Judge John
P. Cronan, to whom the case
was reassigned. Inner City
Press went and covered it. The
questioning was about when a
half day was added - in 2015?
There were only two other
people in the gallery of
Courtroom 12D.
On August 23, the
redirect examination was doing
long. Judge Cronan told
plaintiffs' counsel to stay
within the scope of the cross
examination. On re-cross, the
witness acknowledged he had in
those days swapped shifts, and
couldn't remember which day,
no one could. The next witness
dramatically identified the
defendant, by point and
saying, He is wearing black
clothing.
On August 24, the
defense was questioning a
plaintiff why his name did not
appear in a handwritten
notebook of who got paid, in
and before December, 2016.
Judge Cronan said to move you,
if they had already stipulated
to this.
In the docket are
dueling emails about
stipulations, including an
argument to exclude before
"the jury will gain no
additional clarity... given
how squishy his memory of his
employment at the 28th Street
and 27th Street locations
were."
On August 25,
defense counsel was asking a
witness is someone other than
Brother Fa could have
substitutes shifts. The
plaintiffs' lawyer objected,
overrule, then re-phrase.
Judge Cronan after the jury
left told counsel the charge
conference should be Monday,
with briefing on the burden on
the wage statement claim.
On August 26,
Defense counsel with offices
on East Broadway and in Sunset
Park, Brooklyn wrote in and
admitted it has the burden of
proof, citing O'Donnell v. Jef
Golf Copr, 173 AD3d 1528 [3d
Dept 2019].
Plaintiffs'
counsel in seeking default
against co-defendant Purple
Sushi recited that after the
August trial, "the jury
answered special
interrogatories that indicated
that the Yami Yami (Purple)
defendants were for various
periods of time Plaintiffs'
employers, filed to pay
Plaintiffs minimum wage,
overtime and spread of time,
and acted with varying levels
of good faith." Briefs as to
damages were scheduled for
September 12, September 28 and
October 5 (reply).
Now
Plaintiffs' counsel, at $400 a
hour, want default against
Yami Yami, and the timing
coordinated. Watch this site.
The case is Lu,
et al. v. Purple Sushi, Inc.
et al., 19-cv-5828 (Cronan)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
