Martinez v. Collins Building Services, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-06433
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Martinez v. Collins Building Services, Judge Failla granted permission to seek arbitration or dismissal, but did not decide that motion.
Yoscabel Martinez and Collins Building Services, Inc.; the order primarily sets the schedule for the defendant’s proposed motion and does not decide the claims.
What happened
In Martinez v. Collins Building Services, Collins Building Services asked for permission to file a motion seeking to require arbitration or dismiss Yoscabel Martinez’s amended complaint. The defendant argued that Martinez’s statutory discrimination claims were covered by a collective bargaining agreement requiring arbitration.
The defendant also argued that, even without arbitration, some claims might be too late or barred because Martinez had previously pursued the same facts before a state administrative agency. The opinion does not decide whether any of those arguments are correct.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application to file the motion. She set March 7, 2025, for the defendant’s motion, April 7, 2025, for Martinez’s opposition, and April 28, 2025, for the defendant’s reply; the court did not rule on the requested arbitration or dismissal.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Collins Building Services, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06433
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 7, 2025
Background
On January 22, 2025, Yoscabel Martinez filed an amended complaint. Collins Building Services, Inc., through its attorneys, asked the court for permission to file a motion to compel arbitration—that is, to require the dispute to be decided by an arbitrator rather than in court—or to dismiss the amended complaint under the federal civil-procedure rules.
Defendant’s proposed arguments
Collins argued that Martinez’s statutory discrimination claims are subject to mandatory arbitration under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. The defendant stated that this agreement was materially indistinguishable from one enforced by the Supreme Court in a prior case. It also argued that the claims should be dismissed if they are not subject to arbitration because some may be time-barred or barred by the election-of-remedies doctrine. That doctrine can prevent a person from pursuing the same discrimination claims in court after choosing to bring them before an administrative agency.
The defendant further asserted that any claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act may have been filed more than 90 days after the applicable notice of the right to sue, and that claims under New York State or New York City human-rights laws may be barred because Martinez previously pursued the same operative facts before the New York State Division of Human Rights. These were the defendant’s proposed arguments; the court did not decide them in this order.
Ruling and case management
The court granted the defendant’s application to file the motion. The motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the amended complaint was due on or before March 7, 2025. Martinez’s opposition was due on or before April 7, 2025, and the defendant’s reply was due on or before April 28, 2025. The court also directed counsel to provide Martinez with copies of authorities cited in the motion papers, directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 9, and noted that the amended complaint names Martinez alone—not her husband—as a party. Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not rule on whether arbitration is required or whether the amended complaint should be dismissed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.