DAMIANA ROSARIO AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JOSEFINA BENITEZ v. U.S.A.
DAMIANA ROSARIO AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JOSEFINA BENITEZ, ZION BRERETON, ALICIA LEARMONT, JAMES CHOI AND ANDREYA CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Valentino U.S.A., Inc.
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-11463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Benitez v. Valentino U.S.A., Judge Vyskocil denied plaintiffs’ class-certification motion without prejudice pending summary-judgment proceedings.
The plaintiffs seeking class certification, including Damiana Rosario as administratrix for the estate of Josefina Benitez, Zion Brereton, Alicia Learmont, James Choi, and Andreya Crawford, and Valentino U.S.A., Inc.
What happened
In Benitez et al. v. Valentino U.S.A., Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to consider their class-certification motion at the same time as the parties’ expected summary-judgment motions. They argued that the motions would involve overlapping evidence and issues about overtime pay, time records, worker classification, and wage notices and statements.
Valentino argued that summary judgment should be decided first because it could narrow or eliminate the proposed classes. The parties agreed that class certification did not need to be decided before the expected summary-judgment motions.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the pending class-certification motion without prejudice. The court stated that the plaintiffs could file a new class-certification motion after summary judgment, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at ECF No. 120.
The detailed version
- DAMIANA ROSARIO AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JOSEFINA BENITEZ v. U.S.A. · No. 1:19-cv-11463
- Loretta Preska
- Feb. 23, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs had a pending motion to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The parties were also preparing anticipated motions for summary judgment, a procedure that asks whether the undisputed facts and governing law require judgment for one side without a trial.
In a joint letter responding to the court’s proposed briefing schedule, the plaintiffs argued that the class-certification motion and summary-judgment motions should be considered concurrently. They identified issues involving the effect of “comp time” and other compensation on the salary-basis test and overtime damages, the consequences of allegedly incomplete time records, and alleged violations of New York Labor Law requirements for wage notices and wage statements. They also said the parties’ summary-judgment motions would address whether certain plaintiffs were exempt or non-exempt employees and whether certain plaintiffs were independent contractors during earlier periods.
Valentino argued that the court should resolve summary judgment before class certification. It contended that those motions could narrow the proposed class or make class certification unnecessary if none of the relevant wage-and-hour claims survived. Valentino also argued that deciding summary judgment first would promote efficiency and avoid potentially changing class notices later.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ pending motion for class certification without prejudice. The order states that all parties agreed the motion did not need to be resolved before the contemplated summary-judgment motions. The court preserved the plaintiffs’ right to move again for class certification after summary judgment and requested that the Clerk of Court close the motion listed at ECF No. 120.
The order did not decide the parties’ underlying wage-and-hour claims, the worker-classification questions, or the merits of class certification. It addressed only the timing and status of the pending class-certification motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.