Changshan Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Asia Chinese Restaurant Wan Da Inc., doing business as New Asia, doing business…

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2500
___________________________
Changshan Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
New Asia Chinese Restaurant Wan Da Inc., doing business as New Asia, doing
business as New Asia Chinese Restaurant, doing business as New Asia Express
Restaurant, doing business as New Asia Express
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Hong Sheng Lin
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: June 4, 2026
Filed: June 15, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM.
In this wage-and-hour action, Changshan Li appeals following the district
court’s adverse judgment concluding that, as a delivery driver, he was an independent
contractor and thus not protected by the relevant labor laws. Upon careful review, we
conclude that reversal is warranted. See Karlson v. Action Process Serv. & Priv.
Investigations, LLC, 860 F.3d 1089, 1093 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing legal question
whether individual was employee or independent contractor de novo, and reviewing
fact findings as to nature of relationship for clear error).
We have reviewed the economic realities factors, and we conclude that they
weigh in favor of finding Li was an employee. See Walsh v. Alpha & Omega USA,
Inc., 39 F.4th 1078, 1082 (8th Cir. 2022) (assuming, without deciding, that 6-factor
economic realities test is appropriate test of employment under Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA)); see also Alexander v. Avera St. Luke’s Hosp., 768 F.3d 756, 763 (8th
Cir. 2014) (noting Supreme Court has construed FLSA’s broad definition of
employee to include individuals who, as a matter of economic reality, are dependent
upon the business to which they render service). Notably, in addition to the factors
that the district court found favored employee status, we conclude that delivery
service in general was integral to the business, see Walsh, 39 F.4th at 1085; Li’s
investment in his delivery vehicle was not significant in comparison to the employer’s
overall investment, see Keller v. Miri Microsystems LLC, 781 F.3d 799, 810 (6th Cir.
2015); and the employer had some control over the way Li performed his work, as it
set his pay and delivery locations, and Li worked 6 days per week and was on-call to
make deliveries, see McFeeley v. Jackson Street Ent., LLC, 825 F.3d 235, 241-42 (4th
Cir. 2016); Herman v. Express Sixty-Minutes Delivery Serv., 161 F.3d 299, 303 (5th
Cir. 1998). Given our conclusion that Li was an employee, we also conclude that
there was no good cause to set aside the entry of default against the corporate
defendant. See Johnson v. Leonard, 929 F.3d 569, 573-74 (8th Cir. 2019) (reviewing
decision to set aside entry of default for abuse of discretion).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case
for further proceedings.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --