Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:17-cv-00840
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Judge Broderick granted Defendants’ request to temporarily stay discovery concerning twelve unionized plaintiffs pending a motion to dismiss.
The temporary discovery stay affects the twelve unionized plaintiffs identified in the opinion and discovery concerning them; it also affects the defendants, who sought to avoid potentially unnecessary discovery costs while their motion to dismiss is pending.
What happened
In Wang et al. v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc. et al., the defendants asked the court to pause discovery involving twelve unionized workers while their motion to dismiss was pending. The defendants argued that the workers’ federal and state wage claims were displaced by federal labor law.
The defendants said the motion involved only legal questions and that discovery could be unnecessary and costly if the workers were later dismissed. One group of plaintiffs did not oppose the request; the law firm representing the unionized plaintiffs opposed it.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the request and temporarily stayed discovery of or concerning the twelve unionized plaintiffs until the court resolves the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The order did not decide that motion.
The detailed version
- Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00840
- Vernon Broderick
- July 8, 2021
Background
The defendants—Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc., T&W Restaurant, Inc., and Michael Tong—asked the court to temporarily stay, or pause, all discovery involving twelve unionized plaintiffs. The defendants had filed a pending motion to dismiss those plaintiffs’ claims for overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. They argued that those claims were preempted, meaning displaced, by the Labor Management Relations Act. They also argued that the court should decline to keep related state-law claims in federal court if the federal claims were dismissed.
The case had 29 total plaintiffs who had filed consents to sue. The opinion states that 11 non-unionized delivery personnel had settled or reached settlements in principle, leaving 18 non-settled plaintiffs: 12 unionized plaintiffs and 6 non-unionized delivery personnel. The defendants sought to stay the July 27, 2021 fact-discovery deadline as it applied to the unionized plaintiffs. One plaintiffs’ law firm did not object to the temporary stay, while the law firm representing the unionized plaintiffs opposed it.
Reasoning
The court stated that discovery may be stayed during a potentially dispositive motion—one that could resolve claims or parties—when there is good cause. The relevant considerations included whether the defendant made a strong showing that the claim was unmeritorious, the scope and burden of discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay.
The court found good cause here because the defendants’ motion to dismiss was based entirely on legal questions. In the court’s view, no discovery from the unionized plaintiffs was required to resolve those questions. Continuing discovery could also impose substantial and potentially wasteful legal fees and costs if the unionized plaintiffs were ultimately dismissed. The court found that a temporary stay would not unfairly prejudice the plaintiffs because they could continue pursuing their claims if the motion to dismiss were denied.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the defendants’ application. The court temporarily stayed discovery of or concerning the twelve unionized plaintiffs until it resolves the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. The opinion does not resolve that motion or determine whether the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted or should be dismissed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.