Mossiah v. Mulligan Security LLC
- Vargas
- 1:25-cv-04561
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mossiah v. Mulligan Security, Judge Vargas denied Mulligan’s motion to stay discovery while its arbitration motion remained pending.
Leneisje Mossiah and the defendants are affected: discovery will continue while Mulligan’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss remains pending.
What happened
Leneisje Mossiah, and others similarly situated v. Mulligan Security LLC et al. concerns Mossiah’s claims that Mulligan laid her off without proper notice under federal and New York worker-adjustment laws. Mulligan asked the court to pause discovery while it pursued a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.
The court applied a three-part test because Mossiah disputed whether an arbitration agreement was formed and argued that Mulligan had given up its right to arbitrate by actively litigating. The court found that Mossiah could be harmed if discovery stopped, because the acquisition of Mulligan by Universal and the transfer of data could threaten records about former employees and layoffs.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied the motion to stay discovery. The court did not decide whether arbitration is required, and discovery will continue so Mossiah can seek documents needed to move the case forward.
The detailed version
- Mossiah v. Mulligan Security LLC · No. 1:25-cv-04561
- Vargas
- Dec. 3, 2025
Background
Leneisje Mossiah sued Mulligan Security LLC, alleging that Mulligan hired her as a security guard in or about July 2022 and laid her off on November 24, 2024, without providing the notice required by the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act or the New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Mossiah amended the complaint twice to identify Mulligan properly and then to name its acquiring company, Universal Protection Service, LLC. The court had entered a case-management and scheduling order setting a fact-discovery deadline in mid-March.
Mulligan filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss Mossiah’s Second Amended Complaint. It also filed a letter motion asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery while that motion was pending.
Legal Standard
A court may stay discovery for good cause. Courts often stay discovery while deciding a motion to compel arbitration because doing so can prevent duplicative or inefficient litigation. But a stay is not automatic.
Because Mossiah opposed the stay, the court applied a three-factor test: (1) whether Mulligan made a strong showing that Mossiah’s claim was unmeritorious; (2) how broad the discovery was and how burdensome responding would be; and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to Mossiah. The court expressly stated that it was not deciding the merits of Mulligan’s motion to compel arbitration.
Court’s Analysis
For the first factor, the court found that Mossiah had raised a genuine dispute about Mulligan’s right to arbitrate, based on her argument that Mulligan had actively participated in the litigation. That weakened Mulligan’s showing and weighed against staying discovery.
The second factor favored a stay. Mossiah did not dispute that the requested discovery was substantial, and the parties could incur significant litigation expenses if discovery continued and the court later granted the arbitration motion.
The third factor, however, ultimately weighed against a stay. Mossiah argued that Universal’s acquisition of Mulligan, along with the integration and transfer of data systems, put electronically stored information concerning Mulligan’s former employees and layoffs at risk. She also pointed to the permanent closure of her former worksite. The court found that these circumstances could compromise her ability to show a mass layoff supporting her worker-notice claim.
Disposition
The court held that discovery should continue so Mossiah could secure documents necessary to move the case forward. It therefore DENIED Mulligan’s Motion to Stay Discovery and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 37. The opinion did not rule on Mulligan’s pending motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.