Mayors v. Port Impoerial Ferry Corp.

Background

Nelson Mayors filed a proposed class action against his former employer under New York Labor Law § 191. He alleges that, as a manual worker, he should have been paid weekly rather than every two weeks. Mayors received all of his paychecks, but alleges that the late payments qualify as an underpayment for which he may recover liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees under New York Labor Law § 198(1-a).

Port Imperial Ferry Corp. moved to stay the case while New York appellate courts consider whether § 198(1-a) creates an express or implied private right to sue in this situation. In the alternative, it moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The New York appellate divisions have disagreed on this legal question. The Second Department’s decision in Grant rejected such a right of action, while the First Department’s decision in Vega recognized one. A motion for reargument and permission to appeal was pending in Grant before the Second Department.

Court’s analysis

A stay temporarily pauses litigation. The court considered the relevant factors, including the plaintiff’s interest in proceeding, the defendant’s burdens, judicial economy, the interests of nonparties, and the public interest. It found that only the first three factors mattered here.

The court concluded that Mayors and the proposed class would not suffer undue prejudice from a delay because the case seeks monetary relief and Mayors did not dispute that he had already received all outstanding wages. The court recognized that late payment can be a concrete harm, but found that the claimed delay would not justify proceeding before the appellate issue was clarified.

The court also found that a stay would serve the defendant’s interests and promote judicial efficiency. A New York Court of Appeals decision on the issue would bind the federal court. Waiting could prevent the parties from spending time and resources, including on discovery, litigating an issue that might soon be resolved.

Disposition

The court granted Defendant’s motion to stay. The stay lasts until the Second Department rules on the pending motion for reargument and permission to appeal. At that point, the court will reconsider whether the stay should continue. The court held Defendant’s motion to dismiss in abeyance, meaning it paused consideration of that motion rather than deciding it. The parties must file a letter within 72 hours of any material development in Grant.