Pagan v. C.I. Lobster Corp.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-07349
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Pagan v. C.I. Lobster Corp., Judge Carter granted an in-person conference and set briefing deadlines after defendants raised alleged witness tampering.
Joseph Pagan, C.I. Lobster Corp., the other defendants, and the witness Anthony D’Agostino were affected by the conference order and filing deadlines. The provided text does not identify the other defendants by name.
What happened
Pagan v. C.I. Lobster Corp. concerned defendants’ letter about plaintiff Joseph Pagan’s proposed collective-action certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants alleged that Pagan sold drugs at their workplace and threatened coworker Anthony D’Agostino with a gun, and they asked the court to address those allegations.
Defendants asked to postpone Pagan’s certification motion, requested an evidentiary hearing and sanctions for alleged witness tampering, and said they intended to pursue claims that Pagan was a disloyal employee. They also discussed settlement communications and asked for an in-person conference with the parties.
Judge Carter granted the request for an in-person conference and ordered defendants to file a response concerning the allegations by April 5, 2022, Pagan to respond by April 11, and defendants to reply by April 13. The conference was scheduled for April 15, 2022, at 9:30 a.m.; the provided text does not show a ruling on the requested postponement, evidentiary hearing, sanctions, or anticipated pleadings motion.
The detailed version
- Pagan v. C.I. Lobster Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-07349
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
The provided document is a defense letter filed on March 31, 2022, with an embedded portion of the court’s scheduling order. The letter states that defendants’ counsel learned that plaintiff Joseph Pagan allegedly sold marijuana and other drugs on defendants’ premises during his employment and allegedly displayed a gun to coworker Anthony D’Agostino. Defendants asserted that Pagan may have confronted D’Agostino after learning that D’Agostino might provide a witness statement.
Defendants said D’Agostino’s reported statements conflicted with assertions in Pagan’s affidavit supporting his motion to conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Conditional certification is an early-stage procedure for allowing potentially similarly situated workers to receive notice of a wage claim. Defendants argued that the alleged conduct could support a witness-tampering sanctions request and a claim under New York’s faithless-servant doctrine, which can require a disloyal employee to forfeit compensation.
Requests described in the letter
Defendants asked the court to:
- hold an evidentiary hearing concerning the alleged confrontation with D’Agostino and impose appropriate sanctions; - postpone Pagan’s motion for conditional collective-action certification until the court decided defendants’ anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c); - consider the effect of the proposed faithless-servant claims on Pagan’s wage claims and his ability to represent a collective; and - hold an in-person conference with the parties.
The letter also discussed defendants’ written settlement offer and their concerns about whether a settlement response bearing a computer-generated signature had been personally authorized by Pagan. The document does not show that the court ruled on those settlement-related concerns.
Court’s action
The embedded order states that the request for an in-person conference was granted. It required defendants to file a statement or declaration addressing the allegations by April 5, 2022; Pagan to file an affidavit or declaration responding by April 11, 2022; and defendants to file any reply by April 13, 2022. It scheduled an in-person conference in Courtroom 11C at 500 Pearl Street for April 15, 2022, at 9:30 a.m.
The provided text is incomplete at the end of the order and does not state whether the court stayed or postponed the collective-action motion, ordered the requested evidentiary hearing, imposed sanctions, or ruled on any faithless-servant issue. Judge Andrew Carter is identified in the supplied case metadata, while the document text addresses “Judge Aaron”; this summary follows the supplied metadata for the judge field.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.