Stevens & Company, LLC v. Espat

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 24, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-05223·Unknown

Opinion

Jennie Woltz, Esq. heneuren PC Benjamin Folkinshteyn, Esq.* f\ r uo ‘admitted in NY, NU & DC P.O. Box 3111 | Stamford CT 06905 p203.276.0792 jwoltz@wfpclaw.com | bfolkins@wfpclaw.com February 19, 2025 VIA ECF The motion is denied. The Court has specifically considered 1) the verbal confirmation that Defendant is included in the class of aggrieved employees The Honorable Lewis J. Liman under the settlement agreement in the California action and 2) the discovery United States District Court expenses incurred and likely to be incurred by Defendant. These facts do not Southern District of New York change the balance of equities or provide cause for reconsideration of the ord 500 Pearl St., Room 1620 Dkt. No. 53. SOORDERED. New York, NY 10007 — [Or Date: 2/24/2025 Unite Bite □□□□□□ ays Re: Stevens & Company, LLC y. Espat, Civ. Case No. 1:24-cv-5223 (LJL) Request for Reconsideration of Stay Dear Judge Liman: Counsel for Mr. Espat, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff in the above-captioned action, respectfully requests Your Honor’s forbearance to reconsider Mr. Espat’s letter motion to stay depositions in light of his motion for judgment on the pleadings and developments in the related litigation involving Plaintiff Stevens & Company LLC (hereinafter, “TCA”) and Third-Party Defendant Steven Kamali (hereinafter, collectively, “TCA Parties”). On February 14, 2025, subsequent to Mr. Espat’s initial submission on February 11, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel can represent in good faith that Mr. Espat received verbal confirmation from Apex Class Action LLC, the settlement administrator appointed to administer the PAGA Settlement in Nishinaka v. Stevens & Company, LLC., at al. Case No. 23-STCV-17284 (CA Sup. Ct., County of LA), that he is indeed included in the class of employees aggrieved by TCA’s unlawful misclassification practices in the State of California. Upon information and belief, Mr. Espat is expected to receive written confirmation of his entitlement to certain statutory damages from the PAGA Settlement and a calculation of sums thereunder by early March 2025. As stated in the underlying letter motion, in determining whether to grant a stay of discovery pending a relevant motion, courts “must look to the particular circumstances and posture of each case,” and consider factors including the breadth of discovery, prejudice to the parties, and the strength of a dispositive motion on which the request for stay is predicated. Jd. “Courts consider: ‘(1) [the] breadth of discovery sought, (2) any prejudice that would result, and (3) the strength of the motion.’” Camara v. Alltran Financial L.P., 2021 WL 8531660, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (Liman, J.), citing Hong Leong Fin. Ltd. (Singapore) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 297 F.R.D. 69, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The strength of Mr. Espat’s underlying motion is further bolstered by the foregoing developments. Although the TCA Parties are expected to respond to Mr. Espat’s motion for judgment on the pleadings shortly, Mr. Espat’s motion presents a substantial obstacle for them to overcome. Without a doubt, the TCA Parties’ position that Mr. Espat is not an employee of TCA is logically contradicted by and diametrically opposed to their concessions in the California

matter. Thus, the third factor as set forth in Camara, supra, is satisfied. See, e.g., Cota v. Art Brand Studios, LLC, 2022 WL 767110, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (Liman, J.) (noting that the “strength of a motion” is judged by whether there is a “strong showing that [the party moving for the stay] is likely to succeed on the merits.”) (internal citations omitted). The first prong is similarly satisfied since the TCA Parties are seeking extensive and burdensome discovery from Mr. Espat that is completely unnecessary given the fact that Mr. Espat has likely established TCA Parties’ liability pursuant to his counterclaims and TCA not being entitled to recovery under its own complaint. Specifically, the TCA Parties have sought documents, communications, and metadata under 56 different requests for production. See Exhibit A attached hereto. In complying with these requests, Mr. Espat has incurred substantial costs not to mention countless hours of attorney time. Subsequent to Mr. Espat’s original submission of his motion to stay on February 11, 2025, Defendant’s counsel received an initial invoice from its e-discovery vendor totaling $5,762.84 for forensic collection, processing and storage of data, to date. Again, in light of Mr. Espat’s motion and strong arguments therein as to the TCA Parties’ liability under the FLSA and state employment laws for misclassification and other causes of action, a stay is warranted to minimize further needless expenses. Additionally, a stay will allow the parties to calibrate their discovery to the few remaining issues that are not resolved on Mr. Espat’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. See, e.g., Cota, supra, 2022 WL 767110, at *1 (extremely broad discovery requests weigh in favor of stay). Third, the TCA Parties will not suffer any undue prejudice in connection with the stay. Indeed, they will only benefit from it. For example, as a general matter, a claimant who is successful on his misclassification causes of action is entitled to recover not only wages owed, but also attorneys’ fees and costs. Fisher v. SD Protection, Inc., 948 F.3d 593, 601 (2nd Cir. 2020) (attorneys entitled to recover fees that are “reasonable, incidental, and necessary to the representation”). A stay in discovery would allow Mr. Espat to pause the incurrence of extensive

e-discovery fees while this Court considers the underlying motion, a potential benefit to Plaintiff, not prejudice. At this stage in the proceedings, Mr. Espat cannot envision any undue prejudice to Plaintiff. As a result of the foregoing, the balance of factors weigh heavily in favor of granting a temporary stay. Thus, Mr. Espat respectfully requests that this Court grant a stay not only as to depositions, but the remainder of discovery as well. Very truly yours, /Benjamin Folkinshteyn/ Benjamin Folkinshteyn cc: Leo Esses, Esq. (via ECF) EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- X STEVENS & COMPANY, LLC : D/B/A THE CHEF AGENCY, : : Case No. 1:24-cv-05223 Plaintiff, : (LJL)(OTW) : -against- : : JASON ESPAT, : : Defendant. : ------------------------------------------------------------- X

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff Stevens & Company, LLC d/b/a The Chef Agency hereby requests that defendant Jason Espat produce each document, thing and/or item of electronically stored information listed below for inspection and copying (the “Request”), at the offices of The Esses Law Group, LLC, 845 Third Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, New York 10022, within thirty (30) days of service hereof. DEFINITIONS The following definitions, which apply to all requests contained herein, are: 1. “Plaintiff” means Stevens & Company, LLC d/b/a The Chef Agency, together with each of its predecessors, successors, parent companies and affiliates, and all present or former employees, officers, managers, partners, directors, shareholders, attorneys, agents, servants or representatives thereof. 2. “Espat” means defendant Jason Espat. 3. “Complaint” means the Complaint in this action. 4. “Answer” means Your Answer and Counterclaim in this action. 5. “Candidate” means any Person You came in contact with, worked with, communicated with or became aware of while performing any work on behalf of Plaintiff who was seeking recruiting services from Plaintiff.

6. “Client” means any Person You came in contact with, worked with, communicated with or became aware of while performing any work on behalf of Plaintiff who was seeking the recruiting services of Plaintiff to place Candidates with said Person. 7.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stevens & Company, LLC v. Espat, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Stevens & Company, LLC v. Espat (Stevens & Company, LLC v. Espat) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fisher v. SD Protection Inc.
948 F.3d 593 (Second Circuit, 2020)
Hong Leong Finance Ltd. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd.
297 F.R.D. 69 (S.D. New York, 2013)