Brown v. Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. dba Rick's Cabaret New York
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-01455
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brown v. Peregrine, Judge Failla denied plaintiffs’ motions for conditional certification and equitable tolling, allowing renewal later after an appellate arbitration decision.
The ruling directly affected the plaintiffs’ motions for conditional certification and equitable tolling in Brown and the related Carrion matter. Those motions were denied without prejudice to renewal; the order did not resolve the underlying claims or the parties’ dispute over arbitration.
What happened
In Brown v. Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., plaintiffs had pending motions seeking conditional certification and additional time protections in the related Brown and Carrion matters. The Second Circuit had recently reversed an earlier ruling concerning whether defendants waived arbitration.
The parties disagreed about what should happen next. Defendants planned to seek arbitration again, while plaintiffs argued that the arbitration provider would not administer the cases and that a substitute arbitrator could not be appointed under the parties’ agreements.
In light of the Second Circuit’s decision, Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied plaintiffs’ motions for conditional certification and equitable tolling in both matters, without prejudice to renewal. She also scheduled a telephone conference for January 24, 2024, and directed the Clerk to terminate the specified pending motions.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. dba Rick's Cabaret New York · No. 1:22-cv-01455
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 16, 2024
Background
The court’s order followed a joint letter concerning Brown and the related Carrion matter. The letter stated that, on December 20, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed an earlier order that had lifted a stay based on a finding that defendants waived their right to require arbitration. The appellate court held that defendants had not acted so inconsistently with arbitration as to waive that right. It also stated that the district court could consider whether to require arbitration, direct plaintiffs to pay their equal share of arbitration fees, or appoint a substitute arbitrator under another provision of the Federal Arbitration Act.
Parties’ Positions
Defendants said they intended to file a renewed motion to require arbitration, seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator or, alternatively, an order requiring plaintiffs to refile their claims with the American Arbitration Association and pay half of the initial filing fees. Plaintiffs declined those alternatives. Plaintiffs argued that the appellate decision did not change an earlier Second Circuit rule concerning agreements that designate a specific arbitration forum, and that the American Arbitration Association would not administer arbitrations involving defendants. Plaintiffs said that, as a result, no available arbitration forum existed and their claims could not be sent to arbitration.
Ruling
In light of the Second Circuit’s decision, Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied plaintiffs’ motions for conditional certification and equitable tolling in both the Brown and Carrion matters, without prejudice to renewal. The order did not decide the parties’ competing arguments about whether arbitration could proceed. The court scheduled a telephone conference for January 24, 2024, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions identified in the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.