Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Brooklyn, New York employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a Fair Labor Standards Act violation theory.

Plaintiff Anderson St. John (“plaintiff”) worked as a tow truck driver from 2016 to late 2020 for ADESA, Inc., a car auction company with three locations in New York State. Complaint, Docket Entry (“DE”) 1 ¶¶ 2, 8-9. Defendant ADESA Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana. Id. ¶¶ 11-12. Plaintiff's duties included driving a tow truck to locations to pick up cars, loading the cars onto the truck, and then driving them to a lot where
they would be put up for auction. Id. ¶¶ 42-43. Plaintiff alleges that he spent more than twenty-five percent of his shift engaging in manual labor, but was paid on a biweekly basis for his work.

ADESA Inc. managed its nationwide operations through subsidiary LLCs organized in the various states in which it operates. Id. ¶¶ 16. ADESA Inc. managed its operations in New York through a wholly owned subsidiary, ADESA NY, LLC (“ADESA NY”). Id. ¶¶ 14, 16. Plaintiff alleges that ADESA Inc. and ADESA NY are part of a single integrated enterprise that jointly employed plaintiff and the proposed class members. Id. ¶ 17. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that all job openings in New York are posted on a single website, ADESA.com, id. ¶¶ 17-18, and that his paystubs included an address for ADESA NY in Indiana, the same location where ADESA Inc. is headquartered. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff further alleges ADESA Inc. maintained a central human resources office in Indiana from which it managed the human resources needs of all of its nationwide operations, including for ADESA NY. Id. ¶ 21. After the filing of the complaint in March 2022, ownership of ADESA NY was transferred to ADESA U.S. Auction, LLC, which is wholly owned by Carvana Operations HC, LLC. See Murray Decl., DE 27 ¶¶ 3-4. Thus, ADESA Inc. was no longer part of ADESA NY's ownership structure following the sale. Id. ¶ 4.

Plaintiff alleges that ADESA Inc. violated New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) § 191 and § 193 by failing to pay timely wages and by unlawfully deducting wages. Id. ¶¶ 50-52. Plaintiff now seeks relief against ADESA, Inc. on behalf of himself and a class of “[a]ll persons who work or have worked as Manual Workers for Defendant in New York between the date six years before the commencement of this action and the date of final judgment in this matter.” Compl., DE 1 ¶ 31. The asserted basis for jurisdiction is the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Id. ¶ 26. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the value of the matter exceeds $5,000,000, there are over 100 members in the class, the vast majority-if not all of the members-reside in New York, and the vast majority of the class are cititzens of different states than Defendant. .

Outcome: Defendant's motion to join ADESA NY is as a necessary party is GRANTED and Defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) is GRANTED. As such, this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice to its refiling in state court.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: