Burgess v. Major Model Management, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:20-cv-02816
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Burgess v. Major Model Management, Judge Rochon stayed discovery and denied Burgess’s motion to compel, allowing her to renew it later.
The order directly affected Jasmine Burgess and Guido Dolci by pausing the case against Dolci and postponing Burgess’s discovery motion. MMM was already subject to an automatic stay because of its bankruptcy. The proposed class was also affected because the litigation was delayed, but the order did not decide whether the class should be certified or whether the claims were valid.
What happened
In Burgess v. Major Model Management, Inc., Jasmine Burgess alleged that Major Model Management and Guido Dolci misclassified her and others as independent contractors and failed to pay minimum wages. The company’s bankruptcy had already automatically stayed the case against it.
Burgess asked the court to pause the case against Dolci until the bankruptcy-related stay ended, so she could obtain company documents and proceed with a fuller record. The court granted that request and stayed the case until two weeks after the bankruptcy stay is lifted.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Burgess’s motion to compel emails and other discovery from Dolci, but allowed her to renew the motion after the stay ends. The order addressed case management and discovery, not whether Burgess’s wage claims were legally or factually correct.
The detailed version
- Burgess v. Major Model Management, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02816
- Rochon
- Feb. 5, 2023
Background
Jasmine Burgess brought a proposed class action against Major Model Management, Inc. (MMM) and its principal, Guido Dolci. She alleged that the defendants misclassified her and similarly situated workers as independent contractors and failed to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, among other alleged violations.
The case had been automatically stayed as to MMM after the company filed for bankruptcy on February 14, 2022. Burgess asked the court to stay the case against Dolci until MMM’s bankruptcy proceeding was resolved. She said the stay would allow her to obtain relevant documents from MMM, including emails from Dolci’s account, before proceeding toward summary judgment. She also moved to compel Dolci to produce emails and other documents.
Reasoning
The court applied five factors used to decide whether to pause a case: the plaintiff’s interest in moving forward, the defendants’ burden, the court’s interests, the interests of nonparties, and the public interest.
The court found that the first factor favored a stay because Burgess had considered the delay and preferred to pursue discovery as a whole. The second factor also favored a stay because the delay was limited and would end two weeks after the bankruptcy-related stay was lifted. The court found that judicial economy favored waiting so the case could proceed with a fuller record concerning both defendants. The court found no relevant third-party interests. It treated the public-interest factor as neutral because the importance of the wage-classification issue to Burgess did not show that the stay itself would affect the public interest.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to stay discovery and stayed the case until two weeks after the stay in MMM’s bankruptcy proceeding was lifted. Because the case was stayed, the court denied Burgess’s motion to compel discovery from Dolci, with leave to renew after the stay was lifted. Burgess was directed to serve the order on Dolci by email, and the clerk was directed to mail it to Dolci at the addresses listed in the order.
This was a procedural discovery and case-management order. It did not decide the merits of Burgess’s wage or worker-classification claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.