Radosti v. Hudson's Bay Company
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-12266
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Radosti v. Hudson’s Bay Company, Judge Broderick denied Hudson’s Bay Company’s request to pause the case during Lord & Taylor’s bankruptcy.
Bina Radosti, Hudson’s Bay Company, and Lord & Taylor LLC; the case continued against Hudson’s Bay Company while the bankruptcy-related automatic stay remained applicable to Lord & Taylor LLC.
What happened
In Radosti v. Hudson’s Bay Company, Hudson’s Bay Company asked the court to pause the remaining case while Lord & Taylor LLC’s bankruptcy case proceeded. The bankruptcy automatically paused the case against Lord & Taylor LLC, but Hudson’s Bay Company sought a separate pause for itself.
Hudson’s Bay Company argued that witnesses with relevant knowledge were current or former Lord & Taylor employees who could not be questioned in discovery. Plaintiff disputed that claim, and the company’s reply appeared to give up the argument. The court also noted that discovery and depositions were nearing their deadlines.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Hudson’s Bay Company’s motion to stay the proceeding. He found that the company had not shown real prejudice and that the plaintiff and the court had strong interests in moving the case toward a prompt resolution.
The detailed version
- Radosti v. Hudson's Bay Company · No. 1:18-cv-12266
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 29, 2020
Background
Bina Radosti sued Hudson’s Bay Company, doing business as Lord & Taylor, and Lord & Taylor LLC. Hudson’s Bay Company moved to stay, or pause, the case until the final resolution of Lord & Taylor LLC’s bankruptcy case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The bankruptcy proceedings automatically stayed the case against Lord & Taylor LLC under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Hudson’s Bay Company did not ask the court to extend that automatic stay to itself; it asked the court to use its discretionary authority to stay the remaining case.
Parties’ Positions
Hudson’s Bay Company argued that it would be prejudiced if the case continued because, except for Radosti, all witnesses with knowledge of the case were current or former Lord & Taylor LLC employees and could not be subject to discovery. Radosti submitted a declaration disputing that assertion. The court noted that Hudson’s Bay Company’s reply appeared to forfeit that argument. Hudson’s Bay Company also maintained that it was never Radosti’s employer and stated that this issue could be resolved through motion practice.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that when an automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply, a court may still exercise discretion to stay proceedings against non-bankrupt codefendants. The party seeking the stay bears the burden of showing that it is justified. Courts generally consider the plaintiff’s interest in proceeding promptly, the burdens on the defendants, the interests of the courts, the interests of nonparties, and the public interest.
The court found that Hudson’s Bay Company had not identified any real prejudice from allowing the case to continue. Discovery was scheduled to close on December 31, 2020, and depositions were due by October 30, 2020. Radosti had a clear interest in a just and speedy resolution, and the court had an interest in proceeding toward the merits because discovery was nearing completion. The court also noted that the case had been filed on December 27, 2018.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Hudson’s Bay Company’s motion to stay the proceeding. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the open motion at Document 37. The opinion did not decide the underlying dispute or Hudson’s Bay Company’s position that it was never Radosti’s employer.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.