Jackson v. ProAmpac LLC
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-03120
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Jackson v. ProAmpac LLC, Judge Roman denied reconsideration but granted certification for an interlocutory appeal about employee standing under New York Labor Law.
The three plaintiffs’ New York Labor Law Section 195 claims remained dismissed, but the plaintiffs obtained certification of the standing question for possible interlocutory appellate review; the order also affected the defendant companies because the certified question could determine whether those claims proceed.
What happened
Jackson, Perez, and Gallardo asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of their New York Labor Law Section 195 claims. The earlier decision found that their allegations about inaccurate wage statements did not show a concrete injury required to bring those claims.
The plaintiffs argued that the missing information deprived them of the opportunity to spend, save, or invest their wages and that other district courts had recognized similar theories. They alternatively asked the court to certify the standing question for an immediate appeal.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied reconsideration because the plaintiffs repeated arguments the court had already considered and did not show a clear error or serious injustice. But he granted the request to certify for interlocutory appeal the question of when an employee has standing to bring a Section 195 claim.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. ProAmpac LLC · No. 7:22-cv-03120
- Nelson Roman
- July 11, 2024
Background
Noemy Jackson, Roberto Perez, and Raymundo Gallardo sued ProAmpac LLC, Ampac Holdco Inc., and Ampac Paper, LLC. They alleged that the defendants’ wage statements obscured their actual hours worked and legal employer, and that this prevented them from spending or investing wages they were legally owed and delayed their ability to recover allegedly stolen wages.
In a September 25, 2023 decision, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under New York Labor Law Section 195 for lack of standing. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had alleged only a possible future harm and had not identified concrete downstream consequences from failing to receive the required information.
Request for Reconsideration
The plaintiffs argued that the court had overlooked their allegations concerning the “time value of money,” including opportunities to spend wages on household expenses, food, housing, and utilities; save them in interest-bearing accounts; support family members; or invest them to generate additional earnings.
The court rejected that argument. It stated that it had already considered the plaintiffs’ time-value theory and had decided that the allegations did not plausibly show an injury sufficient for standing. The court said the plaintiffs were attempting to reargue how it had applied Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, rather than showing that the court had overlooked controlling authority or made a clear error. The court also noted that the issue of standing under Section 195 remained open in the Second Circuit and that district courts had reached differing conclusions. Those disagreements, however, did not establish the basis required for reconsideration.
The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ request to reconsider the September 25, 2023 decision.
Certification for Interlocutory Appeal
The plaintiffs alternatively asked the court to certify for interlocutory appeal the question of when an employee has standing to bring a Section 195 claim. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the case is fully resolved. The court considered whether the question involved a controlling legal issue, whether there was substantial disagreement about it, and whether an immediate appeal could materially advance the litigation.
The court found all three requirements satisfied. It treated the standing question as a controlling legal question that could be decided largely through statutory interpretation. It found substantial disagreement because district courts had reached conflicting conclusions about whether Section 195 plaintiffs must show concrete downstream consequences. Finally, the court concluded that an appellate ruling could save substantial time and expense by determining whether the Section 195 claims could proceed.
Disposition
The court GRANTED in part and DENIED in part the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, for certification of a question for interlocutory appeal. It DENIED the request to reconsider the earlier dismissal and GRANTED the request to certify for interlocutory appeal the question of when an employee has standing to bring a Section 195 claim. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.