Case 7:21-cv-08590-NSR Document 1 Filed 10/19/21 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 7:21-cv-08590
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`JEANNE GRANT, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`WAKEFERN FOOD CORP.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a class action against Wakefern Food Corp. (hereinafter, “Defendant” or
`
`“ShopRite”) on behalf of its employees that engage in manual work in the course of their
`
`employment at Defendant’s grocery stores1 in the State of New York.
`
`2.
`
`New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a weekly
`
`basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on a semi-monthly basis from the New
`
`York State Department of Labor Commissioner. See New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), Article
`
`6, §191.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has received no such authorization from the
`
`New York State Department of Labor Commissioner.
`
`4.
`
`The New York Court Of Appeals has explained that this law is “intended for the
`
`protection of those who are dependent upon their wages for sustenance.” People v. Ventri, 309
`
`N.Y. 401, 405 (citing former Labor Law § 196).
`
`5.
`
`Defendant has violated and continues to violate this law by paying its manual
`
`
`1 Specifically, employees of grocery stores owned by Defendant within New York, including
`but not limited to various ShopRite, Price Rite, and Gourmet Garage locations.
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-08590-NSR Document 1 Filed 10/19/21 Page 2 of 6
`
`workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff therefore demands liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees on
`
`behalf of herself and a putative class comprised of all manual workers employed by Defendant in
`
`New York State over the last six years.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant conducts
`
`business in New York. Defendant owns and operates numerous ShopRite grocery store locations
`
`throughout New York.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this proposed class action pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), which, under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”),
`
`explicitly provides for the original jurisdiction of the federal courts in any class action in which
`
`at least 100 members are in the proposed plaintiff class, any member of the plaintiff class is a
`
`citizen of a State different from any defendant, and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of
`
`$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff alleges that the total claims of individual
`
`members of the proposed Class (as defined herein) are well in excess of $5,000,000.00 in the
`
`aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because this is a
`
`judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
`
`occurred.
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Wakefern Food Corp. is a New Jersey corporation with a principal
`
`place of business in Keasbey, New Jersey. Defendant owns and operates a subsidiary chain of
`
`grocery stores that employs hundreds, if not thousands, of manual workers in the State of New
`
`York.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-08590-NSR Document 1 Filed 10/19/21 Page 3 of 6
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Jeanne Grant is a citizen of New York who resides in Cold Spring, New
`
`York. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a clerk in ShopRite’s deli department and as a
`
`cashier from 2015 to 2020 at a ShopRite store located in Croton, New York. At least 25% of
`
`Plaintiff’s job responsibilities at ShopRite consisted of manual labor, including tasks such as
`
`stocking shelves, cleaning, assisting customers with deli orders, preparing and wrapping food,
`
`and tending the cash register. Plaintiff was paid every other week, rather than weekly, during the
`
`entirety of her employment with Defendant.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`12.
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all
`
`persons who engaged in manual work during their employment for Defendant in the State of
`
`New York from six years preceding this Complaint to the date of class notice in this action (the
`
`“Class”).
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all persons who engaged in
`
`manual work during their employment at ShopRite locations owned by Defendant in the State of
`
`New York2 from six years preceding this Complaint to the date of class notice in this action (the
`
`“Subclass”).
`
`14. Members of the Class and Subclass are so numerous that their individual joinder
`
`
`2 This includes ShopRite employees of the following ShopRite locations within New York:
`ShopRite of Albany, ShopRite of Bedford Hills, ShopRite of Carmel, ShopRite of Chester,
`ShopRite of Clark, ShopRite of Colonie, ShopRite of Croton, ShopRite of Ellenville, ShopRite
`of Fishkill, ShopRite of Greenway, ShopRite of Fairview (Hudson), ShopRite of Kingston,
`ShopRite of Langrangeville, ShopRite of Liberty, ShopRite of Middletown, ShopRite of
`Monroe, ShopRite of Montague, ShopRite of Montgomery, ShopRite of Monticello, ShopRite of
`New Paltz, ShopRite of New Rochelle, ShopRite of Newburgh, ShopRite of Niskayuna,
`ShopRite of North Greenbush, ShopRite of Peekskill, ShopRite of Poughkeepsie, ShopRite of
`Scarsdale, ShopRite of Slingerlands, ShopRite of Spotswood, ShopRite of Thornwood, ShopRite
`of Tuckahoe, ShopRite of Vailsgate, ShopRite of Wallkill, ShopRite of Warwick, and ShopRite
`of White Plains.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-08590-NSR Document 1 Filed 10/19/21 Page 4 of 6
`
`herein is impracticable. On information and belief, members of the Class and Subclass number
`
`in the thousands. The precise number of Class and Subclass members and their identities are
`
`unknown to Plaintiff at this time but may be determined through discovery. Class and Subclass
`
`members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail and/or publication through the
`
`employment records of Defendant.
`
`15.
`
`Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate
`
`over questions affecting only individual Class and Subclass members. Common legal and
`
`factual questions include, but are not limited to: whether Defendant was required to pay Class
`
`and Subclass members on a weekly basis, whether Class and Subclass members were paid on a
`
`weekly basis, and whether Defendant violated NYLL § 191.
`
`16.
`
`The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class and
`
`Subclass in that the named Plaintiff worked as a manual worker for Defendant during the class
`
`period but was not provided with compensation for her work on a weekly basis.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class and Subclass because her
`
`interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class and Subclass members she seeks to
`
`represent, she has retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and she
`
`intends to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of Class and Subclass members will be
`
`fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and her counsel.
`
`18.
`
`The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of the claims of the Class members. Each individual Class and Subclass member
`
`may lack the resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the
`
`complex and extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendant’s liability. Individualized
`
`litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-08590-NSR Document 1 Filed 10/19/21 Page 5 of 6
`
`system presented by the complex legal and factual issues of this case. Individualized litigation
`
`also presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. In contrast, the class action
`
`device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single
`
`adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of
`
`Defendant’s liability. Class treatment of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and
`
`claimants are before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability issues.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`COUNT I
`
`New York Labor Law – Failure to Pay Timely Wages
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`20.
`
`The timely payment of wages provisions, NYLL § 191, and its supporting
`
`regulations apply to Defendant and protect Plaintiff and the Class.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclass on a timely basis as
`
`required by NYLL § 191(1)(a).
`
`22.
`
`Due to Defendant’s violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclass
`
`are entitled to recover from Defendant the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated
`
`damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as
`
`provided for by NYLL § 198.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`seeks judgment against Defendant, as follows:
`
`a.
`
`For an order certifying the Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure and naming Plaintiff as a representative of the Class and Plaintiff’s
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-08590-NSR Document 1 Filed 10/19/21 Page 6 of 6
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`attorneys as Class Counsel to represent the Class and Subclass members;
`
`For an order declaring Defendant’s conduct violates the law referenced herein;
`
`For an order finding in favor of Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclass on the count
`asserted herein;
`
`For liquidated damages in amounts to be determined by the Court and/or jury;
`
`For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; and
`
`For an order awarding Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclass their reasonable
`attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of suit.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any
`
`and all issues in this action so triable of right.
`
`Dated: October 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
`
`By: /s/ Yitzchak Kopel _
`
`Yitzchak Kopel
`Yitzchak Kopel
`Alec M. Leslie
`888 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (646) 837-7150
`Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
`Email: ykopel@bursor.com
`
` aleslie@bursor.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`6
`
`