Spence v. Brosnan Risk Consultants, Ltd.

2025 NY Slip Op 31648(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 651698/2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Spence v Brosnan Risk Consultants, Ltd. 2025 NY Slip Op 31648(U) May 6, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 651698/2023 Judge: Lori S. Sattler Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/06/2025 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 651698/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/06/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 02M -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X KAREEM SPENCE, on behalf of himself and of all other INDEX NO. 651698/2023 persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 12/24/2024

-v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 BROSNAN RISK CONSULTANTS, LTD.,

Defendant. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HON. LORI S. SATTLER:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107 were read on this motion to/for STAY .

In this class action alleging various violations of the New York Labor Law, nonparties

Yvette Walker (“Walker”), Orlando Cottman (“Cottman”), and Diane Reno (“Reno”)

(collectively “Proposed Intervenors”) move for an order staying this action pending their appeal

of the Court’s December 17, 2024 Decision and Order that denied their motion to intervene

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 84, “December 2024 Decision”). Named Plaintiff Kareem Spence

(“Plaintiff”) and defendant Brosnan Risk Consultants, Ltd. (“Defendant”) oppose the motion.

The Court incorporates by reference the facts set forth in the December 2024 Decision.

In relevant part, Plaintiff first commenced this action on April 4, 2023, asserting claims related to

uniform maintenance pay and spread of hours pay on behalf of himself and his class. Thereafter,

on May 10, 2023, Proposed Intervenors Walker and Cottman, along with another individual,

commenced a putative nationwide class action against Defendant in federal court (“Federal

Action”) for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the labor laws of 27 states

651698/2023 SPENCE, KAREEM ET AL vs. BROSNAN RISK CONSULTANTS, LTD. Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 004

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/06/2025 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 651698/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/06/2025

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 53, “Federal Complaint”). The Federal Complaint alleged that Walker

worked for Defendant in New York and that she and others similarly situated were entitled to

relief under the New York Labor Law.

The parties to this action reached a class-wide settlement in principal after a mediation

held on May 1, 2024. The settlement resolved all wage and hour claims that Plaintiff and the

class could have asserted under the Labor Law, not just the uniform maintenance and spread of

hours claims. The next day, Defendant’s counsel notified the Federal Action plaintiffs’ counsel

about the settlement. The Proposed Interventors filed their prior motion, Motion Sequence 002,

on July 3, 2024. Defendant signed the Settlement Agreement for this action on July 16, 2024

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 62, “Settlement Agreement”). Plaintiff thereafter filed an Amended

Complaint (NYSCEF Doc. No. 51) to add additional wage claim causes of action, and signed the

Settlement Agreement the following day on August 16, 2024. The Settlement Agreement

includes a release of all state law claims, including all Labor Law claims, by any class member

who does not opt out of the settlement (Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 1.27, 4.1[A]).

In Motion Sequence 002, the Proposed Intervenors argued that they did not become

aware of this action until May 2, 2024 when Defendant’s counsel informed their counsel of this

action’s settlement. Although they did not object to settlement of the uniform maintenance pay

and spread of hours claims in this action’s original Complaint, they opposed the addition of other

Labor Law claims in the Amended Complaint and their release in the Settlement Agreement,

arguing that they would be precluded from pursuing those claims in the Federal Action. They

argued that the value of those claims in the Federal Action is significantly higher than the $2.1

million provided for in the Settlement Agreement, and that Defendant delayed settlement

651698/2023 SPENCE, KAREEM ET AL vs. BROSNAN RISK CONSULTANTS, LTD. Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 004

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/06/2025 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 651698/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/06/2025

discussions in the later-filed Federal Action to undercut that case in agreeing to a low-ball

settlement of this action.

The Court found that Cottman and Reno did not have a bona fide interest in this action as

they did not work in New York during the period at issue (December 2024 Decision at 5). The

Court further found that, although Walker has an interest in this action as a class member, her

concerns amounted to “a dissatisfaction with the proposed settlement” which were “largely

speculative and based on the Proposed Intervenors’ own analysis of a small sample of

individuals’ claims in their national class,” and that such concerns were “more appropriately

addressed by objecting to the settlement at the proper time or opting out of the settlement before

its final approval” (id.). The Court also granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of

the Settlement Agreement, provisional certification of a settlement class, appointment of class

counsel, approval of class notice, and scheduling of a fairness hearing. The fairness hearing was

then scheduled for May 14, 2025.

The Proposed Intervenors appealed the December 2024 Decision (NYSCEF Doc. No.

90). They now move for a stay of proceedings in this action. A party seeking a stay pending

appeal must demonstrate probability of success on the merits of the underlying appeal, danger of

irreparable injury absent a stay, and a balance of the equities or public interest favoring a stay

(Kazantzis v Cascade Funding RM1 Acquisitions Grantor Trust, 217 AD3d 410, 411 [1st Dept

2023], quoting J.A. Preston Corp. v Fabrication Enters., 68 NY 397, 406 [1986]). The Proposed

Intervenors argue that they are likely to prevail on appeal because of alleged substantive and

procedural defects with the Settlement Agreement, that they will be irreparably injured absent a

stay because objecting at the fairness hearing is an inadequate substitute for intervening as they

will not be able to investigate the alleged defects, and that the balance of equities favors them

651698/2023 SPENCE, KAREEM ET AL vs. BROSNAN RISK CONSULTANTS, LTD. Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 004

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/06/2025 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 651698/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/06/2025

because they have made the minimum showing that the settlement jeopardizes their claims in the

Federal Action.

The Court finds that the Proposed Intervenors fail to satisfy the requirements for a stay

pending an appeal. They do not demonstrate likelihood of prevailing on appeal as they raise

substantially the same arguments about the Settlement Agreement that the Court rejected in the

December 2024 Decision as amounting to dissatisfaction with the settlement. Their claim that

the Settlement Agreement was the result of a “reverse auction” amounts to speculation and is

unsupported by the record. The Proposed Intervenors also fail to demonstrate irreparable injury

or show that the balance of equities favors a stay. Two of the Proposed Intervenors, Cottman

and Reno, have no interest in this action as they are not alleged to have worked in New York

during the subject period and their claims in the Federal Action are therefore not affected by the

Settlement Agreement. As to Walker, they fail to demonstrate that her rights are not protected

by the class procedures in this action. As class members in the present case, Walker and those

similarly situated can either object to the Settlement Agreement or opt out and pursue their New

York claims separately absent a stay.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

5/6/2025 $SIG$ DATE LORI S. SATTLER, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

651698/2023 SPENCE, KAREEM ET AL vs. BROSNAN RISK CONSULTANTS, LTD. Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 004

4 of 4 [* 4]