Lopez v. Lidl US, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-04271
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Lopez v. Lidl, Judge Carter denied reconsideration, denied interlocutory-appeal certification, denied Lidl’s fees request, and ordered arbitration to resume.
Samantha Lopez and the FLSA collective plaintiffs and class she sought to represent must proceed with the arbitration process ordered in the earlier ruling; Lidl’s request for costs and fees was denied.
What happened
In Lopez v. Lidl US, LLC, Samantha Lopez alleged that Lidl failed to pay wages and overtime because of time-shaving, under federal and New York wage laws. The court had previously ordered arbitration of her claims individually.
Lopez asked the court to reconsider that earlier order and to certify it for an immediate appeal. She argued that questions about the arbitration agreement and how it was accepted should be reviewed before further district-court proceedings.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied both motions, concluding that Lopez had not shown new facts, law, or exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration or an immediate appeal. The court also denied Lidl’s request for costs and fees and directed the parties to resume arbitration and provide progress updates every 90 days.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Lidl US, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04271
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 28, 2024
Background
Samantha Lopez sued Lidl US, LLC, doing business as Lidl, on behalf of herself, FLSA collective plaintiffs, and a class. She alleged that Lidl failed to pay wages, including overtime premiums, because of time-shaving. The claims arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
In a March 29, 2023 order, the court granted Lidl’s motion to compel arbitration of Lopez’s claims on an individual basis. In this opinion, Lopez moved for reconsideration of that order and separately moved for certification of an interlocutory appeal, which is an appeal before the case has reached a final judgment.
Motion for Reconsideration
The court treated the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a final judgment in specified circumstances, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, or another reason justifying relief. The court explained that this remedy is extraordinary and is not available merely to relitigate an issue already decided.
The court stated that it had previously considered whether an arbitration agreement existed, the scope of the arbitration clauses, and related legal issues under the standard governing motions to compel arbitration. Lopez had not submitted additional evidentiary facts showing that reconsideration was warranted. The court therefore denied Lopez’s motion for reconsideration.
Interlocutory Appeal
Lopez also asked the court to certify questions for immediate review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The proposed questions concerned whether arbitration language addressed the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement and whether an employee could agree to arbitration by accepting employment when the employer had said that a future arbitration agreement would require a written signature.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification requires a controlling legal question, substantial disagreement about that question, and a likelihood that immediate review would materially advance the end of the litigation. The court found that Lopez had not shown the exceptional circumstances needed for interlocutory review. The court also stated that the March 2023 order was not appealable under Section 16(b) of the Federal Arbitration Act because that provision bars an appeal from an order granting a stay under Section 3 of the Act. The court denied the motion for interlocutory appeal.
Fees, Sanctions, and Case Status
The court denied Lidl’s request for costs and fees incurred in opposing Lopez’s motion. It also declined to impose sanctions on Lopez’s counsel, stating that filing a motion that ultimately failed did not warrant sanctions in the court’s discretion.
The court directed the parties to resume the arbitration process and to file status updates about its progress every 90 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 38.
Disposition
The motion for reconsideration was denied. The motion for interlocutory appeal was denied. Lidl’s request for costs and fees was denied. The opinion did not decide the underlying wage claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.