Pry v. Auto-Chlor System, LLC

Background

Aaron Pry filed a proposed class action alleging that Auto-Chlor System, LLC violated New York Labor Law §§ 191 and 198 by paying him and the proposed class of manual workers every two weeks rather than weekly. He later amended the complaint to add Auto-Chlor System of New York City, Inc. as a defendant. The opinion states that Pry had been paid all wages and was seeking liquidated damages.

After the case began, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department decided Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch, Inc. The decision held that there was no private right of action for an employee seeking liquidated damages for timely-pay violations under New York Labor Law § 191. That decision conflicted with an earlier decision from the First Department holding that such a private action exists. The plaintiff in Grant asked the Second Department for permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, and that request was pending when the district court issued this order.

Motion and Stay Request

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In the alternative, they asked the court to stay, or pause, this case until the New York Court of Appeals decides whether to review Grant and, potentially, resolves the state-law question. The court expressly stated that it was making no ruling on the motion to dismiss at that time.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that it had authority to stay proceedings while another case that could affect the outcome was pending. It considered five factors: Pry’s interest in proceeding promptly and any prejudice from delay; the defendants’ interests and burdens; the courts’ interests; the interests of nonparties; and the public interest.

The court found that all five factors favored a stay. It concluded that Pry would not suffer undue prejudice because he had already been paid his wages and sought only liquidated damages. The court also found that the defendants and the courts could be harmed by spending time and resources litigating an issue that the New York Court of Appeals might soon resolve. A stay would preserve judicial resources and serve the public interest. The court also noted that two other courts in the Southern District of New York had stayed similar cases involving the same state-law question.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ request for a stay. Further proceedings were stayed pending the New York Court of Appeals’ potential review of Grant. The parties must submit a joint status letter no later than two weeks after the Second Department rules on the pending request for permission to appeal, proposing any next steps. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion to dismiss at ECF No. 55. The order did not decide that motion or the underlying wage-law claims.