Venning v. Primark US Corp.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-10176
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Venning v. Primark, Judge Furman denied Venning’s stay request, extended his response deadline, and permitted renewal if the Second Department grants leave in Grant.
Travis Venning, the proposed class of similarly situated workers, and Primark US Corp.; the order also changed the deadlines for briefing Primark’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
What happened
In Venning v. Primark US Corp., Travis Venning brought a proposed class action claiming that Primark violated New York law by paying manual workers every two weeks instead of weekly. Primark later asked the court to dismiss the case based on a New York appellate decision called Grant.
Venning asked the court to pause the case while New York’s highest court considers whether to review Grant. He argued that waiting could avoid unnecessary legal work because the appellate decision might resolve the dispute about whether workers can sue under the wage-payment law.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the stay application without prejudice to renewal if the Second Department grants permission to appeal Grant to the New York Court of Appeals. He extended Venning’s deadline to oppose Primark’s motion to May 3, 2024, set Primark’s reply deadline for May 10, 2024, and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 34.
The detailed version
- Venning v. Primark US Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-10176
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 12, 2024
Background
Travis Venning filed a proposed class action against Primark US Corp. under Section 191(1)(a) of the New York Labor Law. The opinion states that Venning alleged he was a manual worker who worked for Primark in New York and was paid every two weeks. He sought liquidated damages, interest, and attorney’s fees and expenses for himself and similarly situated workers.
The dispute involved whether Section 191(1)(a) gives workers a private right to sue over payment less frequently than weekly. The opinion describes a conflict between New York appellate departments. In Vega v. CM & Assocs. Constr. Mgmt., LLC, the First Department recognized express and implied private rights of action. In Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch, Inc., the Second Department reached the opposite conclusion, holding that the statute provides neither type of private right of action.
Stay request
On March 29, 2024, Primark filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to dismiss the case based on Grant. Venning asked the court to stay, or pause, the case while the Second Department considered whether to allow an appeal in Grant to the New York Court of Appeals. Venning argued that the appellate proceedings could resolve the legal issue and avoid unnecessary briefing and judicial resources. Primark did not consent to the requested stay.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the application, without prejudice to renewal if the Second Department grants leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals in Grant. The order did not decide whether Venning has a private right of action or whether Primark’s motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted.
The court extended Venning’s deadline to file opposition to Primark’s motion to May 3, 2024. Primark’s reply was due May 10, 2024. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 34.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.