Figueroa-Torres v. Kleiner
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:20-cv-04851
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Figueroa-Torres v. Kleiner, Judge Failla granted a conference request after defendants withdrew their arbitration motion.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the wage-related case, and the Union whose disclaimer led the defendants to withdraw their arbitration motion.
What happened
In Figueroa-Torres v. Kleiner, the defendants withdrew their request to force the dispute into arbitration after the Union disclaimed interest in three buildings. The defendants also opposed the plaintiffs’ requests concerning damages, fees, retaliation claims, the collective bargaining agreements, and attorney disqualification.
The court decided that a conference was necessary to discuss the next steps in the case. It scheduled a remote conference for May 28, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the plaintiffs’ request for a conference and directed the Clerk to terminate the defendants’ arbitration motion and the plaintiffs’ conference motion. The court did not decide the underlying wage, retaliation, or contract issues in this order.
The detailed version
- Figueroa-Torres v. Kleiner · No. 1:20-cv-04851
- Robert Lehrburger
- Apr. 20, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs’ counsel asked the court for a pretrial conference and raised several issues concerning union dues, collective bargaining agreements, arbitration, attorney’s fees, possible sanctions, retaliation claims, and disqualification of defense counsel. The defendants responded that the Union had notified the National Labor Relations Board that it was disclaiming interest in three buildings: 2176-2180 Tiebout Avenue, 1665 Monroe Avenue, and 2335 Valentine Avenue.
The defendants stated that, because of the Union’s disclaimer, they were withdrawing their motion to compel arbitration, which had been filed on January 29, 2021. They disputed the plaintiffs’ allegations of coercion and wrongdoing and declined to stipulate to liability for liquidated damages or attorney’s fees. They also argued that the collective bargaining agreements no longer compelled arbitration and that some issues were moot, meaning there was no longer a live dispute for the court to decide.
Court’s Action
The court stated that, in light of the defendants’ withdrawal of the arbitration motion, a conference was necessary to discuss the next steps in the case. The court therefore granted the plaintiffs’ request for a conference. It scheduled the conference to occur remotely on May 28, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., with access instructions to be provided in advance.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, docket number 60, and the plaintiffs’ letter motion for a conference, docket number 74. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ wage-related claims, any proposed retaliation claims, the validity of the collective bargaining agreements, entitlement to attorney’s fees, sanctions, or disqualification of defense counsel.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.