The New York Times Company et al v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverers Union of New York and Vicinity et al
| The New York Times Company, City and Suburban Delivery Systems Inc., City and Suburban Delivery Systems Inc. january 2009 Severance Pay Plan for Eligible Employees Represented by The Newspaper and Mail Deliverers Union of New York and Vicinity, Plan Administrator of the City and Suburban Delivery Systems Inc. January 2009 Severance Pay Plan for Eligible Employees represented by the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers Union of New York and Vicinit and Erisa Management Committee of the New York Times Company |
| Newspaper and Mail Deliverers Union of New York and Vicinity, Enrique Grados, Djevalin Gojani, Christopher Fabiani, Richard Atkins, Raimon Moran, John Cassaro, Munir Fahreddine and Willie Miles |
| 1:2012cv05430 |
| July 13, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Alvin K. Hellerstein |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
99
ORDER AND OPINION ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: on re: 70 MOTION to Stay Proceedings, filed by National Labor Relations Board. For the reasons set forth below, I hold that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the dis pute before it. The Times, along with the Plan, the Plan Administrator, and the ERISA Management Committee, filed an interpleader suit in this Court, see 28 U.S.C. 2361, offering to deposit the funds remaining for six buy-outs ($600,000 plus and minus adjustments, totaling $368,451.40). The $368,451.40 reflected adjustments for interest, severance paid to Defendants, and withholding taxes. The suit named as defendants the NMDU and the eight individual persons who claimed an i nterest in these funds, and Plaintiffs eventually deposited these funds with the Court, see Dkt. No. 47. This suit lingered on my calendar for five years. Other than this interpleader deposit, the Court and parties have awaited final judgment in the NLRB proceedings. The Court has one final job: ruling who may be the eligible recipients, among the eight individual defendants, of the court-deposited funds for the final 6 buy-outs. Now, after five years, on August 17, 2017, see Dkt. Nos. 64, 65, the NLRB intervened to stay the Court from overseeing the distributions of these benefits, contending, among other things, that it has exclusive or primary jurisdiction. I held oral argument September 6, 2017, and denied the motion to stay. T he NLRB now argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The NMDU supports the NLRB's position. Plaintiffs and the individual defendants oppose. For the reasons set forth below, I find that the Court retains both statutory interplea der jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335, and federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The distribution of those buy-outs, created pursuant to an employee welfare benefit plan, is properly within this Court's j urisdiction. A status conference shall be held December 13, 2017, at 3:00 P.M., to discuss procedures for determining the eligible participants, according to their seniority as employees at the Time and its wholly owned subsidiary C&S, and properly distributing the deposited funds to them, and as further set forth in this order. The Clerk shall terminate the NLRB's Motion to Stay Proceedings (Dkt. No. 70). (Status Conference set for 12/13/2017 at 03:00 PM before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.) Motions terminated: 70 MOTION to Stay Proceedings, filed by National Labor Relations Board. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 12/5/2017) (ap)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
