Tuy Xep v. De Hoop Corp.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-00450
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tuy Xep v. De Hoop Corp., Judge Woods stayed the wage case against both defendants after De Hoop filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
The stay pauses Francisco Tuy Xep’s wage claims against De Hoop Corp. and Suzaan Hauptfleisch, postpones the scheduled bench trial and other deadlines, and protects De Hoop Corp.’s bankruptcy reorganization from the immediate effects of continuing the claims against Hauptfleisch.
What happened
In Tuy Xep v. De Hoop Corp., Francisco Tuy Xep claimed that De Hoop Corp. and Suzaan Hauptfleisch owed him unpaid minimum wages, overtime, spread-of-hours wages, and statutory damages under federal and New York wage laws. A bench trial was scheduled for January 8, 2025.
De Hoop Corp. notified the court that it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which automatically paused the case against the company. The court ruled that the pause should also cover Hauptfleisch because the parties had treated the defendants as jointly responsible for the same conduct and damages against Hauptfleisch could immediately affect De Hoop’s bankruptcy reorganization.
The court stayed the action against both defendants and postponed all scheduled dates and deadlines, including the trial. The stay will continue until the bankruptcy court lifts it as to De Hoop Corp. or the court otherwise orders it as to Hauptfleisch. Judge Woods also ordered the parties to file a status update by the stated deadline.
The detailed version
- Tuy Xep v. De Hoop Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-00450
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 3, 2024
Background
Francisco Tuy Xep brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against De Hoop Corp., doing business as Kaia Wine Bar, and Suzaan Hauptfleisch. He alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. His claims sought unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours wages, and statutory damages for allegedly inadequate wage notices and wage statements. A bench trial was scheduled for January 8, 2025.
On December 3, 2024, proposed counsel for De Hoop Corp. notified the court that the company had filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Under the Bankruptcy Code, that filing automatically stayed, or paused, the case against De Hoop Corp.
Reasoning
The court explained that a bankruptcy stay usually applies only to the debtor—the person or company that filed for bankruptcy—not to the debtor’s co-defendants. But the court may extend the stay to a non-bankrupt co-defendant when continuing the case against that defendant is sufficiently likely to have a material adverse effect on the debtor’s reorganization.
The court found that standard met here. Xep had asserted all seven causes of action against both defendants collectively and based them on the same alleged conduct. The parties’ pretrial stipulation also treated the defendants as collectively liable and stipulated that both were Xep’s employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The court stated that this meant each defendant was jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded, so a damages award against Hauptfleisch could also impose liability on De Hoop Corp. The court also found that the claims against the two defendants were closely intertwined and that the stipulated facts did not distinguish their conduct.
Disposition
The court stayed the action as to Suzaan Hauptfleisch in addition to the existing stay as to De Hoop Corp. It postponed all scheduled dates and deadlines, including the January 8, 2025 bench trial, without setting a new date. The stay will remain in effect until the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York lifts the stay as to De Hoop Corp. or, as to Hauptfleisch, until this court otherwise orders. The parties were directed to file a status update no later than ten days after the bankruptcy court lifts the stay as to De Hoop Corp. or by May 3, 2025, whichever came first. Judge Gregory H. Woods also directed the clerk to note the stay on the docket and mail the order to Hauptfleisch.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.