Nam v. Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations

Background

Hyunhuy Nam sued the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations, which the opinion identifies as his former employer. He alleged that he was not paid overtime wages earned while working as a chauffeur, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, among other claims.

Both sides moved for summary judgment, a procedure allowing a court to decide claims when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. On February 21, 2023, the court denied the Mission’s summary-judgment motion, ruling that the Mission was not immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court also partially granted Nam’s summary-judgment motion on his unpaid-overtime claims under the federal and New York laws. The court ordered the parties to prepare for trial on the remaining claims.

The Mission filed an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the entire case is over—asking the Second Circuit to review the ruling that it was not immune. It then asked the district court to stay, or pause, the case while that appeal was pending. Nam opposed the stay.

Legal standard

The court explained that deciding whether to stay a case during an interlocutory appeal is within the district court’s discretion. It applied four factors: whether the party seeking the stay showed some likelihood of success on appeal, whether that party would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether the stay would substantially injure the opposing party, and where the public interest lies. The factors operate on a sliding scale, meaning a stronger showing on one factor can offset a weaker showing on another.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the Mission would suffer irreparable harm if the case proceeded to trial and the appeals court later ruled that the Mission was immune. The court reasoned that immunity protects against being sued and facing the burdens of litigation, not merely against ultimately paying liability. It therefore considered this factor to weigh heavily in favor of a stay.

The court concluded that Nam would not suffer substantial harm from the stay. Discovery had ended, Nam no longer worked with the Mission, many claims had already been decided on summary judgment, and Nam sought monetary damages for past employment. The court determined that these circumstances meant a delay would not substantially injure him, even though it would delay recovery on the overtime claims and trial on the remaining claims.

Because the potential harm to the Mission was significant and the harm to Nam was not substantial, the court required only a minimal showing that the Mission might succeed on appeal. The court stated that it believed its immunity decision was correct but recognized that the appeals court could reach a different conclusion, particularly because another district court had held that, in certain circumstances, a chauffeur’s employment at a diplomatic mission qualified as commercial activity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The court also found that proceeding with trial could waste the parties’, court’s, and public’s resources if the Mission were ultimately found immune. It therefore concluded that the public-interest factor favored a stay.

Disposition

The court granted the Mission’s request to stay the case pending consideration of the Mission’s interlocutory appeal by the Second Circuit. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 105.