Urena v. Sonder USA Inc.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:22-cv-07736
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Urena v. Sonder USA, Judge Marrero stayed the case while New York courts consider whether the wage claim may proceed.
Christian Urena, the proposed class, and Sonder USA Inc.; the case is paused while the New York appellate courts consider the state-law issue.
What happened
Urena v. Sonder USA Inc. is a proposed class action alleging that Sonder violated New York wage law by paying wages every two weeks instead of weekly. The remaining issue concerned whether employees may seek liquidated damages for that timing violation.
The court found that a New York appellate decision, Grant, had created a disagreement within New York’s appellate courts about that issue, and that further review might resolve the question. The court concluded that waiting would not unfairly harm Urena or the proposed class and would avoid wasting the parties’ and court’s resources.
Judge Victor Marrero ordered that further proceedings be stayed while the New York Court of Appeals potentially reviews Grant. The parties must submit a joint status letter within two weeks after the New York appellate court rules on the pending request to appeal. An earlier order had separately granted Sonder’s motion to dismiss another wage-notice claim with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Urena v. Sonder USA Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07736
- Victor Marrero
- Mar. 28, 2024
Background
Christian Urena brought a proposed class action against Sonder USA Inc. Count One alleged that Sonder violated New York Labor Law sections 191 and 198 by paying Urena and the proposed class every two weeks rather than weekly. The dispute relevant to this order was whether section 198 allows employees to bring a private lawsuit seeking liquidated damages—an additional monetary remedy—for timely-pay violations under section 191.
Sonder had moved to dismiss Count One. Before deciding that motion, the court considered whether to pause the case because the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, had decided Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch, Inc. The Grant decision held that section 198 does not provide a private right of action for liquidated damages for timely-pay violations, conflicting with an earlier decision from the First Department holding that such an action is available. The plaintiff in Grant had requested permission to appeal, and that request was pending before the Second Department.
The court’s earlier March 7, 2024 decision and order had also granted Sonder’s motion to dismiss Count Two, which alleged violations of New York Labor Law section 195’s wage-notice requirements, with prejudice. That earlier ruling was not the disposition made by this order.
Reasoning
The court explained that it has authority to stay, or temporarily pause, proceedings while another case that could affect the outcome is being considered. It evaluated the private interests of the plaintiff and defendant, the interests of the courts and nonparties, and the public interest.
The court found that all of those considerations favored a stay. Urena and the proposed class sought only monetary penalties, and Urena did not dispute that his outstanding wages had already been paid. The court therefore found no undue prejudice from delaying the case. The court also determined that both sides could waste time and resources litigating Count One if a later New York Court of Appeals decision resolved the controlling state-law question. A ruling from New York’s highest court would bind this federal court on the meaning of the New York statute.
The court further found that a stay was especially appropriate because Grant involved a significant conflict within New York’s appellate courts and a higher court was potentially close to resolving the issue. The court noted that another federal court in the Southern District of New York had previously stayed a case involving the same state-law question.
Order and effect
The court ordered that further proceedings in the action be stayed pending potential review of Grant by the New York Court of Appeals. The order did not decide Sonder’s motion to dismiss Count One. The parties must submit a joint status letter no later than two weeks after the Second Department rules on the pending request for permission to appeal.
Judge Victor Marrero signed the order on March 28, 2024.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.