Paulino v. Kleiner
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-05250
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Paulino v. Kleiner, Judge Subramanian set deadlines for an arbitration motion and complaint amendments concerning retaliation and wage violations.
Pedro Paulino and the defendants, including David Kleiner, are affected by the filing, document-production, and complaint-amendment deadlines.
What happened
In Paulino v. Kleiner, the court set deadlines after a teleconference. The defendants must give Pedro Paulino documents and legal authorities relevant to their planned motion to compel arbitration by October 27, 2023.
The motion to compel arbitration is due November 3, with opposition due November 13 and replies due November 20. Paulino must amend the complaint to add any retaliation claim by November 1. The complaint must also allege the later consequences of the claimed wage-notice and wage-statement violations by November 20, for purposes of showing standing.
Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order on October 25, 2023. The order sets deadlines and amendment requirements; it does not decide the arbitration motion or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Paulino v. Kleiner · No. 1:23-cv-05250
- Subramanian
- Oct. 25, 2023
Order
After a teleconference, the court ordered the defendants to provide Pedro Paulino with documents and legal authorities relevant to their anticipated motion to compel arbitration by October 27, 2023.
The court set the following briefing schedule for that motion:
- Motion to compel arbitration: November 3, 2023 - Opposition briefs: November 13, 2023 - Reply briefs: November 20, 2023
The court also required Paulino to amend the complaint by November 1, 2023, to add any retaliation claim. Separately, for standing purposes—the requirement that a plaintiff show a legally sufficient connection to the alleged injury—the amended complaint must allege the downstream consequences of the alleged wage-notice and wage-statement violations by November 20, 2023. The order cites a prior related proceeding, Cartagena v. Sixth Avenue West Associates LLC, as support for this requirement.
Disposition
The court entered a scheduling and amendment order. It did not rule on the anticipated motion to compel arbitration and did not decide the merits of the retaliation or wage-related allegations.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.