Melendez v. Pronto Gas Heating Supplies, Inc.
- Ona Wang
- 1:20-cv-10263
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Melendez v. Pronto Gas, Judge Wang stayed the civil case through June 7, 2021, while a related criminal investigation continued.
Melendez and the defendants were affected: the court paused the civil case through June 7, 2021, while the Bronx District Attorney’s Office continued its investigation.
What happened
In Melendez v. Pronto Gas Heating Supplies, Inc., Melendez asked the court to pause the civil case while the Bronx District Attorney investigated allegations that he stole more than $50,000 from the defendants. Melendez denied the allegations and said the criminal complaint was retaliation for his wage claims.
The defendants opposed a stay. They argued that Melendez had not been indicted, that the criminal investigation could take an unknown amount of time, and that they should be able to pursue their claims without delay. Melendez argued that proceeding could force him to choose between protecting himself in the criminal matter and defending against the civil counterclaims.
Judge Wang ruled that a stay was appropriate but should not be indefinite. The court stayed the case through June 7, 2021, required another joint status letter by that date, and adjourned the initial pretrial conference to June 15, 2021.
The detailed version
- Melendez v. Pronto Gas Heating Supplies, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10263
- Ona Wang
- Apr. 6, 2021
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter about whether the civil case should be stayed while the Bronx District Attorney’s Office investigated criminal allegations involving Melendez. The opinion states that Melendez had been scheduled to surrender to New York Police Department detectives, but that the planned arrest did not occur because of the Bronx District Attorney’s investigation. The investigation was ongoing, and its expected completion date was not disclosed.
Melendez requested a stay until the investigation ended. He said the defendants had filed the criminal complaint in retaliation for his civil case, which asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. He denied the defendants’ counterclaim allegations and asserted his innocence. He also argued that the civil counterclaims and potential criminal charges involved the same alleged conduct and that continuing the civil case could force him to choose between invoking his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and fully defending the civil claims.
The defendants opposed the stay. They described a stay as an extraordinary remedy and argued that Melendez had not been indicted, that the timing of any criminal prosecution was uncertain, and that delaying the civil case would prejudice their ability to defend against Melendez’s claims and pursue their counterclaims. They also argued that Melendez did not have an absolute right to avoid choosing between testifying in the civil case and invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Court’s ruling
After reviewing the letter, the court concluded that a stay was appropriate but declined to grant an indefinite stay. Judge Wang stayed the case through June 7, 2021. The parties were ordered to file another joint letter by that date describing the status of the criminal investigation and their views on next steps, including whether the stay should be lifted. They were also directed to notify the court promptly of material developments before June 7. The initial pretrial conference was adjourned to June 15, 2021, at 4:30 p.m.
Disposition
The civil case was stayed through June 7, 2021. The opinion does not state a final disposition of the civil claims or counterclaims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.