Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 22, 2024

Campbell v. City of New York

Judge
Loretta Preska
Docket
1:24-cv-02575
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Civil ProcedureFlsa
In one sentence

In Campbell v. City of New York, Judge Lehrburger granted a stay and paused potential collective members’ filing deadlines pending a consolidation decision.

Who this affects

The stay directly affects Marie Campbell and the other plaintiffs, the City of New York, and the case’s proceedings. The tolling order affects people who may seek to join the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective action by pausing the filing deadlines for their potential claims during the stay.

What happened

Marie Campbell and other plaintiffs jointly asked to pause their case against the City of New York because a later case, Calliste v. City of New York, raised substantially similar claims and included a request to combine the cases.

The parties also asked the court to pause the filing deadlines for people who might join the plaintiffs’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. They said this would protect potential members from losing claims while the stay and consolidation request were pending.

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the joint request. He stayed Campbell retroactively pending resolution of the motion to consolidate in Calliste and paused the claims of potential collective members for the same period. The stay and pause will automatically end when the court rules on the consolidation motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Campbell v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-02575
Judge
Loretta Preska
Date
Oct. 22, 2024

Background

The parties jointly requested a stay, meaning a temporary pause in the case, while the court considered the City’s motion to consolidate a later-filed action, Calliste v. City of New York, No. 24-CV-4016. The parties represented that Calliste involved substantially similar claims. They argued that continuing both cases separately could lead to duplicative litigation, unnecessary costs, possible confusion for potential collective members, and possible claim-preclusion problems.

The plaintiffs also asked the court to apply equitable tolling to potential collective members’ claims. Equitable tolling pauses the running of a statute of limitations when the court determines that the claimants acted diligently and extraordinary circumstances justify the pause. The parties asked that the tolling begin when they filed their joint request on July 15, 2024, and continue during the stay.

Court’s ruling

The court granted the joint request. It stayed the case, effective retroactively, pending resolution of the motion to consolidate filed in Calliste. It also tolled, or paused the filing deadlines for, potential collective members’ claims for the same period. The stay and tolling period will automatically end when the court enters an order on the motion to consolidate in Calliste. The order did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims or the consolidation motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.