Venning v. Primark US Corp.

Background

Primark’s counsel asked the court to postpone the initial pretrial conference scheduled for March 13, 2024. Counsel stated that the firm had recently been substituted as Primark’s counsel and that the attorney handling the matter would be outside the country during the relevant period. The letter states that Venning’s counsel consented to the request.

Primark also stated that it intended to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), seeking dismissal of the amended complaint. According to the letter, the amended complaint alleged that Primark violated New York Labor Law § 191 by paying Venning every two weeks instead of weekly. Primark’s counsel argued that a recent New York appellate decision held that § 191 does not provide a private right to sue over payroll frequency, while noting that New York appellate departments had disagreed on that issue. Primark’s counsel also argued that Venning lacked the required constitutional standing to pursue claims under New York Labor Law § 195 concerning wage statements and notices.

Ruling

The court granted the application. It adjourned the initial pretrial conference “sine die,” meaning no new conference date was set in the order, and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 26. The order did not decide Primark’s anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings, the New York Labor Law issues, or the standing arguments.