Overtime Law Blog | FLSA Decisions

Home » Collective Actions » S.D.N.Y.: Although Elements of First-Filed Rule Satisfied, Court Declines to Transfer Second-Filed Case Due to Lack of Progress of First-Filed Case

S.D.N.Y.: Although Elements of First-Filed Rule Satisfied, Court Declines to Transfer Second-Filed Case Due to Lack of Progress of First-Filed Case

Submit Your Case - Copy (2)

Wage & Hour News

TwitterGoogle+LinkedInRSSJustia

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 281 other followers

RSS DOL News

  • US Labor Secretary Perez renews workplace rights agreements with five Central American, South American and Asian Pacific governments
    US Labor Secretary Perez renews workplace rights agreements with five Central American, South American and Asian Pacific governmentsPartnership renewals coincide with 2016 Labor Rights Week, Aug. 29-Sept. 4 WASHINGTON – At the U.S. Department of Labor headquarters in Washington today, U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez renewed partnership agreements wit […]
  • MSHA issues call to safety to nation’s coal miners
    MSHA issues call to safety to nation’s coal minersARLINGTON, Va. – Since October 2015, eight fatalities and more than 1,100 nonfatal accidents have occurred in the nation’s coal mines, resulting in restricted duty, missed days at work, and permanent disabilities for the miners who worked there.  While injury rates have been fairly consistent during this time […]
  • Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report
    In the week ending August 20, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 261,000, a decrease of 1,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 262,000. The 4-week moving average was 264,000, a decrease of 1,250 from the previous week's unrevised average of 265,250. Release Date: 08/25/2016Release Number: 16-1739-NAT Override w […]

Authors

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case was before the court on defendant’s motions to dismiss the case under the first-filed rule, or in the alternative to transfer the case to the site of the first-filed case, as well as defendant’s motion to stay the case, pending the outcome of a related appeal in the first-filed case.  Citing the lack of progress in the first-filed case, the court denied the motions, although acknowledging that the underlying elements necessary for application of the first-filed rule were present.

The court reasoned:

“KPMG has met its burden of showing that the first-filed rule applies in this case by demonstrating that the Present Action and the California Action are nearly identical; however, due to the extensive delay in the California Action, the application of the first-filed rule is diminished.

Since the actions include the same parties and claims, the first-filed rule applies. However, application of the first-filed rule is diminished where there has been little progress in the first-filed action. Am. S.S. Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 474 F.Supp.2d 474, 489 (S.D.N.Y.2007), aff’d sub nom, N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am ., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.2010); see Raytheon Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 306 F.Supp.2d 346, 352–53 (S.D.N.Y.2004). This case was filed by the California Plaintiffs in 2007. Since that time there has been no significant movement in the case, (Swartz Decl. Ex. 2.) and there has been no movement since the case was stayed in 2009 pending the outcome of Campbell by the Ninth Circuit. Thus, the presumption afforded the California Action is diminished here. If Plaintiffs can show the balance of convenience tilts even slightly in their favor, there is no reason for this court to transfer the action.

Plaintiffs have not identified any “special circumstances” that warrant deviation from the first-filed rule.  However, the balance of convenience factors weigh in favor of maintaining this action in the Southern District of New York.”

The court also denied defendant’s motion for a stay, pending the outcome of a related appeal in the Ninth Circuit, noting:

“The first three factors are similar to those considered in the “first-filed” analysis, so those factors weigh in favor of proceeding with this action. The interests of the persons not parties to the civil litigation and the public interest also weigh in favor of denying Defendant’s motion to stay the action. As a collective action, the statute of limitations for opt-in plaintiffs continues to run until the plaintiffs opt-in to the action. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Hoffman v. Sbarro, Inc., 982 F.Supp. 249, 260 (S.D.N . Y.1997) (Sotomayor, J.). The FLSA has a statute of limitations of three years, two if “willfulness” is not found. Any further delay could prejudice the interests of potential opt-in plaintiffs, whose claims may stale. Public interest also favors the swift resolution of claims alleging violations of the FLSA.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 281 other followers

%d bloggers like this: