Chung v. 335 Madison Avenue LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-03861
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chung v. 335 Madison Avenue LLC, Judge Liman dismissed Chung’s wage case with prejudice because he did not timely challenge the arbitration award.
Yuk Lung Chung’s federal and state labor and wage claims against 335 Madison Avenue LLC were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Chung v. 335 Madison Avenue LLC, Yuk Lung Chung sued his former employer over alleged federal and state labor and wage violations. The parties’ collective bargaining agreement required covered wage claims to be resolved through binding arbitration. The court had previously sent Chung’s claims to arbitration and stayed the case.
The arbitrator rejected all of Chung’s claims and ruled for 335 Madison Avenue LLC in an award issued July 21, 2023, and amended July 24, 2023. Chung did not timely file a motion challenging the award or respond to the employer’s renewed dismissal motion. The court therefore treated the motion as unopposed.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the employer’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Chung’s complaint with prejudice. The court explained that the Federal Arbitration Act gave Chung three months to challenge the award, and that deadline had passed. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Chung v. 335 Madison Avenue LLC · No. 1:21-cv-03861
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 15, 2023
Background
Yuk Lung Chung brought a labor and wage action against 335 Madison Avenue LLC, alleging violations of federal and New York labor and wage laws. Chung’s employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement. That agreement stated that federal, state, and local labor and wage claims were subject to its grievance and arbitration procedure as the final, binding, sole, and exclusive remedy, and that covered employees could not file suit or seek relief in another form.
In September 2021, the court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but denied its motion to dismiss at that time. The court explained that when all claims are sent to arbitration and a stay is requested, the Federal Arbitration Act requires the court to stay the proceedings.
The arbitration later concluded. The arbitrator issued an award on July 21, 2023, and amended it on July 24, 2023, to correct a typographical error. The award rejected Chung’s claims in their entirety and ruled for 335 Madison Avenue LLC. The court gave Chung additional time to object to dismissal with prejudice, but he took no action by the deadline. After the defendant renewed its motion, the court gave Chung until November 10, 2023, to respond and warned that it would treat the motion as unopposed if he did not respond. Chung again did not respond.
Legal standard and analysis
The court explained that a union may commit an employee’s wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York’s corresponding law to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court also explained that a party seeking to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award must serve the opposing party with notice of that motion within three months after the award is filed or delivered. The court stated that this deadline is strictly applied and has no exception for delay.
The award was issued and delivered to Chung through counsel on July 21, 2023, and amended on July 24, 2023. Whether the three-month period began on July 21 or July 24, the deadline passed in October 2023. Because Chung did not timely challenge the award or otherwise object to the defendant’s motion, the court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Disposition
The court GRANTED 335 Madison Avenue LLC’s motion to dismiss. It DISMISSED Chung’s complaint with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.