Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Tran v. Alphonse Hotel Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureFLSARICOLMRARule 15(c)relation backequitable tollingfraudulent concealment

Facts

Plaintiff worked as a maintenance worker at defendants' Manhattan hotels from January 1989 to July 1991 after having previously worked there as a union member. He testified, corroborated by a coworker, that he worked 91 hours per week in 1989 and 1990 and 63 hours per week in 1991, but defendants failed to keep definitive records of his hours and paid him only $13,648.91 in cashed checks during that period. After remand of his FLSA claim, plaintiff sought to add a RICO claim based on newly alleged bribes paid by defendant Dinh Truong Tran to union representatives so the hotels could avoid compliance with the collective bargaining agreement. The district court found for plaintiff on both FLSA and RICO, but had calculated overtime using the statutory minimum wage rather than the higher union rate.

Issue

Whether the district court clearly erred in finding plaintiff's overtime hours and actual wages received, whether FLSA overtime should have been calculated using the minimum wage or the higher union rate, whether the amended RICO claim related back or was equitably tolled despite being filed after the limitations period, and whether the LMRA and state law claims should have been reinstated based on evidence of bribery.

Rule

When an employer lacks accurate records, an FLSA employee meets his burden by proving he performed uncompensated work and producing sufficient evidence of the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference. Under the FLSA, overtime must be paid at one and one-half times the employee's regular rate, and if that regular rate exceeds the statutory minimum, the overtime calculation must use the higher rate. An amended claim relates back under Rule 15(c)(2) only if the original pleading gave fair notice of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence underlying the new claim; a new claim based on a significant new factual allegation not alleged in any form does not relate back. Equitable tolling for fraudulent concealment requires proof that the defendant wrongfully concealed material facts, that the concealment prevented timely discovery of the claim, and that the plaintiff exercised due diligence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 2020, Maya Ortiz sued Riverfront Lodging Group in federal court in Chicago, alleging only that the company failed to pay her overtime and kept false payroll records. In 2025, after the limitations period on a civil racketeering claim had expired, she moved to amend to add a claim alleging that the company had bribed local labor representatives to ignore staffing violations.

Should the amendment relate back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c)?

Explanation. Relation back depends on whether the original pleading gave fair notice of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence underlying the new claim. An amended claim based on bribery does not relate back where the original complaint alleged only wage violations and contained no allegation of bribery in any form. The new claim is not merely a new legal theory on the same facts; it introduces a significant new factual basis.