Islam v. LX Avenue Bagels, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:18-cv-04895
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Islam v. LX Avenue Bagels, Judge Abrams gave plaintiffs until November 25, 2019, to oppose defendants’ request to extend a bankruptcy stay.
The plaintiffs and the individual and corporate defendants in Islam v. LX Avenue Bagels, Inc.; the order set a deadline for plaintiffs to oppose the defendants’ requested extension and continuation of the bankruptcy stay.
What happened
In Islam v. LX Avenue Bagels, Inc., the corporate defendants told the court that they had filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases on November 8 and 9, 2019.
The individual defendants asked the court to extend the bankruptcy-related pause in the case to them and to continue the pause for the entire lawsuit. They argued that the relevant records belonged to the companies, that the individuals were important to the companies’ operations, and that continuing the lawsuit could interfere with reorganization.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not decide the request in this order. Instead, she directed plaintiffs to respond by November 25, 2019, if they opposed continuing the stay.
The detailed version
- Islam v. LX Avenue Bagels, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-04895
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 19, 2019
Background
Defendants notified the court that LX Avenue Bagels, Inc., Amir Ram Bagels, Inc., and another corporate defendant had filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases in the Eastern District of New York on November 8 and 9, 2019. The individual defendants were Mohammed Kamal, Imanuel Halon, Amir Ram, and Hossam Zebib.
Defendants’ Request
The individual defendants asked the court to extend the automatic stay—the bankruptcy pause that generally stops certain actions against a debtor and its property—to the individual defendants. They also asked the court to continue the stay for the entire lawsuit.
Defendants argued that the relevant payroll records, time records, and other evidence concerning the Fair Labor Standards Act claims belonged to the corporate debtors rather than the individuals. They further argued that all four individual defendants were essential to the companies’ day-to-day operations and that continuing the lawsuit could interfere with the companies’ Chapter 11 reorganization. Defendants cited decisions discussing when a bankruptcy stay may cover non-debtor codefendants and referred to an earlier order staying another case involving bankruptcy proceedings.
What the Court Ordered
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not grant or deny the request to extend or continue the stay in the text provided. Instead, the court ordered that, if plaintiffs opposed defendants’ request, they had to file a response no later than November 25, 2019. The order therefore set a response deadline rather than resolving the stay request.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.