Calliste v. City of New York
- Loretta Preska
- 1:24-cv-04016
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Calliste v. City of New York, Judge Lehrburger granted an unopposed stay pending a ruling on consolidation.
The stay pauses the entire Calliste action, affecting the plaintiffs, the City of New York, and potential collective members. It also addresses possible effects on the plaintiffs in the related Campbell action.
What happened
In Calliste v. City of New York, the City asked the court to pause the case while it considered consolidating Calliste with the earlier-filed Campbell case, which the City said involved substantially similar claims. The plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
The City argued that pausing the case would avoid duplicative litigation and unnecessary costs, including repeated discovery and expert work. The court also considered the possible effects on the plaintiffs, prospective collective members, the Campbell plaintiffs, the court, and the public.
Judge Lehrburger granted the unopposed request to stay the case. The stay applies retroactively and will remain in place until the court rules on the motion to consolidate; it will then automatically end when the court enters an order on that motion.
The detailed version
- Calliste v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-04016
- Loretta Preska
- Oct. 22, 2024
Background The City of New York asked the court to stay, or pause, the entire action while the court decided the City's pending motion to consolidate this case with Campbell v. City of New York, No. 24-CV-02575. The City described Campbell as a first-filed action with substantially similar claims. The opinion states that the plaintiffs did not oppose the request for a stay.
Arguments for a Stay The City relied on the factors courts consider when deciding whether to stay a case: the plaintiffs' interest in proceeding quickly and any delay-related prejudice; the defendant's interests and litigation burden; the court's interests; the interests of nonparties; and the public interest.
The City argued that a stay would not prejudice plaintiffs who had already joined the action because filing written consent forms in a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action tolls the statute of limitations for those individuals. The City also cited the possibility of equitable tolling for potential collective members. It argued that continuing the case before the consolidation decision could cause unnecessary litigation, settlement, discovery, and expert costs. The City further argued that a stay would promote judicial efficiency, protect the Campbell plaintiffs from possible claim-preclusion effects, reduce confusion for potential collective members, and serve the public interest by avoiding potentially unnecessary use of court resources.
Ruling The court granted the unopposed request to stay the action. The case was stayed nunc pro tunc, meaning the stay was made effective retroactively, pending resolution of the motion to consolidate. The stay will automatically lift when the court enters an order on that motion. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims or the motion to consolidate.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.