Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC

Background

Derrick Stewart brought a proposed collective and class action against Hudson Hall LLC, Hudson Hall Holdings LLC, Think Food Group LLC, and José Ramon Andrés Puerta, also identified as José Ramon Andrés. He asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, unpaid off-the-clock work, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

The court had previously entered a protective order preventing Stewart from taking Andrés’s deposition. The defendants had sought that order, arguing in part that Andrés was an executive who was not involved in Mercado Little Spain’s daily operations. Andrés submitted a declaration stating that he was not then, and had never been, involved in those operations. Stewart did not oppose the request, and the court granted it as unopposed.

Stewart later sought to lift the protective order, relying on testimony from Michael Principe and on Stewart’s own deposition testimony. Stewart said that this evidence showed Andrés had interviewed and hired personnel, trained personnel, developed menus, and performed food-quality control. The court denied that request, finding that Stewart had not shown an extraordinary circumstance or compelling need for Andrés’s deposition and that there had been no discernible change in circumstances since Stewart chose not to oppose the protective-order request.

Motion for Reconsideration

Stewart moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). He argued that Andrés’s declaration was untrue and incorporated the arguments from his earlier motion. The reconsideration standard was strict: Stewart had to identify controlling decisions, new information, or another circumstance that could reasonably be expected to change the prior conclusion. Reconsideration was not available simply to repeat arguments the court had already rejected or to present arguments that could have been made earlier.

Judge Sarah L. Cave held that Stewart did not meet that standard. The court found that he identified no controlling decision, new information, or other factor that could reasonably be expected to alter the earlier ruling. The court also held that repeating the arguments from the original motion did not justify reconsideration.

Fees and Costs

The defendants requested attorneys’ fees and costs for responding to what they called a frivolous filing. The court considered the standards for sanctions under Rule 11 but exercised its discretion not to award fees or costs. It noted that the response and motion were each two pages, that Stewart’s motion had caused no delay, and that the court had not previously warned Stewart about frivolous filings and possible sanctions.

Disposition

The court denied Stewart’s motion to reconsider. It also denied the defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs in opposing that motion. The clerk was directed to close the docket entry for Stewart’s motion.