Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-02733
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Avery v. TEKsystems, Judge Corley partly stayed the case pending appeal, covering 123 class members but not the named plaintiffs or 413 others.
The order pauses proceedings and holds the partial-summary-judgment order in abeyance for 123 class members whose claims are involved in TEKsystems’ appeal. The named plaintiffs and 413 class members whose claims are not involved in the appeal are not covered by the stay or abeyance order.
What happened
In Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc., recruiters alleged that TEKsystems improperly classified them as exempt from California overtime and wage laws. After the court denied TEKsystems’ request to send 123 class members’ claims to arbitration, TEKsystems appealed and sought to pause the entire case.
The court granted the stay for the 123 class members whose claims are part of the appeal. It denied the stay for the named plaintiffs and 413 class members whose claims are not part of the appeal. The court also put its earlier partial summary-judgment order on hold for the 123 class members, but not for the named plaintiffs and 413 other class members.
Judge Corley ruled that the appeal did not require pausing claims that were outside the appeal. The order granted in part and denied in part TEKsystems’ motion to stay.
The detailed version
- Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-02733
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Nov. 18, 2024
Background
A class of TEKsystems recruiters alleged that TEKsystems improperly classified them as exempt from California overtime, wage, and hour laws and therefore underpaid them. The court certified a class of approximately 540 members.
TEKsystems later moved to compel arbitration of the claims of 123 class members who, according to TEKsystems, were bound by an arbitration agreement that took effect on January 1, 2024. The court denied that motion. TEKsystems filed an interlocutory appeal, which is an appeal during the ongoing district-court case, from the denial of arbitration.
Four days after TEKsystems filed its notice of appeal, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could not find that TEKsystems had satisfied all the requirements of its affirmative defense based on the administrative exemption to California overtime pay.
Motion to Stay
TEKsystems asked the court to stay the entire case while the appeal was pending. It also asked the court to hold its partial-summary-judgment order in abeyance, meaning temporarily set it aside from taking effect, until the appeal was resolved. TEKsystems argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Coinbase required an automatic stay of all proceedings after an appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.
The court explained that Coinbase involved an appeal concerning arbitration of all of the plaintiff’s claims. Here, the appeal concerned only the arbitrability of the claims of 123 class members. The court concluded that the reasoning in Coinbase did not require a stay of claims that were not involved in the appeal. The court also found that the named plaintiffs and 413 class members had a strong interest in moving their claims forward, while the potential harm from additional discovery and costs was limited.
Ruling
The court granted TEKsystems’ motion for a stay as to the 123 class members whose claims were involved in the interlocutory appeal. It denied the motion to stay as to the named plaintiffs and the 413 class members whose claims were not involved in the appeal.
The court also granted TEKsystems’ request to hold the partial-summary-judgment order in abeyance for the 123 class members involved in the appeal. It denied that request as to the named plaintiffs and the remaining class members. The order disposed of Docket No. 132.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.