Joseph v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: June 24, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-05776
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K DO CUMENT WAYNE JOSEPH, SCOTT DENLEY, ANTHONY ELECTRONICAL LY FILED BARBATO, BRYAN WALSH, LATORIA BOSLEY, DOC #: _________________ and DARNELL EASON, on behalf of all persons DATE FILED: __6/24/2021___ similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

-against- 20 Civ. 5776 (AT)

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY,

Defendants. JEFFREY MERCADO, TYRONE PRINGLE, ADAM ROMAN, KEVIN KNOIS, and EDWARD KALANZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,

-against- 20 Civ. 6533 (AT)

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ORDER and TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY,

Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:

Before the Court are two related cases involving alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Defendants, Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, move to consolidate the actions. ECF No. 55.1 Although Plaintiffs in the first-filed action (the “Joseph Action”) do not oppose Defendants’ motion, No. 20 Civ. 5776, ECF No. 36, Plaintiffs in the later-filed action (the “Mercado Action”) do, ECF No. 71. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.

Cases may be consolidated where they involve “a common question of law or fact.” Stone v. Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd., 280 F.R.D. 142, 143 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)). A court may consolidate cases “to avoid unnecessary costs or delay,” but “[c]onsiderations of convenience and economy must yield to a paramount concern for a fair and impartial trial.” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284-85 (2d Cir. 1990)). Thus, “consolidation should not be permitted if it would cause delay or undue prejudice.” Scott v. Newsday, Inc., No. 88 Civ. 0152, 1989 WL 20598, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 1989).

1 All docket entries refer to documents as numbered in Mercado et al. v. Metro. Transp. Auth. et al., No. 20 Civ. 6533 (S.D.N.Y.), unless otherwise noted. The two actions are similar because both groups of Plaintiffs allege FLSA violations against the same employer. ECF No. 1; No. 20 Civ. 5776, ECF No. 24. However, some of the Joseph Action Plaintiffs might be exempt under the FLSA because they are salaried, unlike the Mercado Plaintiffs. No. 20 Civ. 5776, ECF No. 24 § 38; ECF No. 33-2 9] 29, 31; see Castro v. Metro. Transp. Auth., No. 04 Civ. 1445, 2006 WL 1418585, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006) (“[A]n executive, administrative, or professional employee . .. who performs certain duties and is paid on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week” is exempt from the provisions of the FLSA). Additionally, unlike the Joseph Action Plaintiffs, the Mercado Action Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not pay them for off-the-clock work and shaved their work time through their timekeeping system. ECF No. 1 ff] 120-44. Because the Joseph Action Plaintiffs’ claims are more limited, and because more discovery would be needed in the Joseph Action to establish whether the FLSA applies, consolidation is not appropriate. See Sands v. Manhattan Beer Distrib., Inc., No. 08 Civ. 0182, 2009 WL 10709098, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2009) (“Given the broader scope of [one plaintiff's] claim and the need for more discovery in that case, consolidation [with another case against the same defendant] would be improper and may result in unfair prejudice .. .”). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to consolidate is DENIED. By July 15, 2021, Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaints. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 24, 2021 New York, New York ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge