Ruff v. Montreign Operating Company, LLC
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-10373
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ruff v. Montreign, Judge Roman granted the parties’ request to pause the case for mediation until April 15, 2024.
The stay affects Samantha Ruff, the opt-in plaintiffs, and Montreign Operating Company, LLC. It pauses the case while the parties pursue mediation and requires them to submit a status report to the court on April 15, 2024.
What happened
In Ruff v. Montreign Operating Company, LLC, the plaintiff, the opt-in plaintiffs, and the defendant jointly asked the court to pause the case while they mediated their wage-and-hour claims. They proposed completing mediation by April 9 and keeping the stay in place until April 15, 2024.
The parties said a short pause would allow them to focus on settlement and could conserve court resources. They also argued that mediation might narrow the claims or defenses even if it did not resolve the case.
The court granted the request for a stay until April 15, 2024, and ordered the parties to submit a brief status report that day. Judge Nelson S. Roman also ruled that the stay order made the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint moot and directed the clerk to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 60 and 61.
The detailed version
- Ruff v. Montreign Operating Company, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-10373
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Samantha Ruff and the opt-in plaintiffs, together with Defendant Montreign Operating Company, LLC, doing business as Resorts World Catskills, jointly requested a stay of the case. They sought the stay to conduct mediation with Giulio Zanolla, Esq. The parties asked the court to stay the matter until April 15, 2024, stating that they expected to complete mediation by April 9.
The parties argued that their interests were aligned in pursuing an amicable resolution and that a limited stay could focus their efforts on settlement. They also argued that mediation could conserve judicial resources and provide information that might eliminate or narrow claims or defenses, even if mediation did not resolve the case.
Court’s Action
The court granted the parties’ request for a stay until April 15, 2024. The court further directed the parties to provide a brief status report on that date.
The court stated that the stay order mooted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, identified as ECF No. 61. It directed the clerk to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 60 and 61. The opinion does not provide further details about those motions or decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.