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 denied a renewed class-certification request, lifted a discovery stay for waitstaff employees, and set next steps.
The parties, Haiping Wu’s estate and proposed administrator Xiaolin Zhang, the delivery workers and waitstaff employees involved in discovery and future summary-judgment motions, and plaintiffs seeking another class-certification motion.
What happened
In Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, the court ordered the parties to discuss replacing deceased plaintiff Haiping Wu with Xiaolin Zhang, the administrator of Wu’s estate, and the discovery defendants sought from the estate. Plaintiffs must file a renewed substitution motion by July 28, 2023, and defendants must respond by August 4, 2023.
The court granted the parties’ request to end the discovery stay concerning the waitstaff employees and ordered a revised case-management plan by July 31, 2023. Defendants must move for summary judgment concerning the delivery workers and waitstaff employees at the same time, and the parties must submit a proposed briefing schedule within five business days after discovery ends.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied plaintiffs’ request to file a second class-certification motion for the waitstaff employees after more discovery. He said the case had been pending since 2017, plaintiffs had sufficient opportunities to develop their class-certification evidence, and further discovery was unlikely to change his earlier conclusions.
The detailed version
- Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00840
- Vernon Broderick
- July 25, 2023
Background
After a July 21, 2023 conference, the court issued this case-management order. The order addressed substitution for deceased plaintiff Haiping Wu, discovery concerning Wu’s estate, discovery concerning certain employees, the timing of summary-judgment motions, and plaintiffs’ request to file another class-certification motion.
Substitution and Estate-Related Discovery
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer about the proposed substitution of Xiaolin Zhang, identified as the administrator of Haiping Wu’s estate. The discussions must address discovery that defendants believe they are owed concerning Wu, whether Zhang can provide or help obtain that discovery, and factors relevant to whether substitution is appropriate.
Plaintiffs were ordered to submit a renewed motion to substitute by July 28, 2023. The motion must include a declaration describing the steps plaintiffs’ counsel took between March 13, 2023, and July 21, 2023, to correct deficiencies in the substitution paperwork, including the dates of those steps. Defendants were ordered to submit their opposition by August 4, 2023.
Discovery and Summary-Judgment Schedule
The court granted the parties’ request to vacate, or end, the stay of discovery concerning the listed waitstaff employees. The parties were ordered to submit a revised case-management plan by July 31, 2023.
The court also ordered defendants to file their summary-judgment motions concerning the delivery workers and the waitstaff employees at the same time. The parties must jointly submit a proposed briefing schedule for those motions within five business days after discovery is completed.
Class-Certification Request
The court denied plaintiffs’ request to file a second motion to certify a class for the waitstaff employees after discovery closed. The court stated that plaintiffs provided no legal authority or other basis for allowing another class-certification motion after additional discovery. It also stated that the case had been pending since 2017 and that allowing another motion would be unfair and prejudicial to defendants.
The court referred to its earlier order denying plaintiffs’ class-certification motion. According to this order, the earlier decision found that plaintiffs had not met any of the requirements needed to certify a class and that proposed class counsel, Troy Law, did not satisfy the adequacy requirement for class counsel. The court stated that the earlier decision was not a close call and that further discovery was unlikely to change those conclusions.
Disposition and Classification
The court granted the request to vacate the discovery stay, denied plaintiffs’ request to refile a second class-certification motion, and issued the stated deadlines and scheduling orders. This was a procedural case-management order; it did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.