Peloton Interactive Inc. moved to stay a wage and hour class action proceeding in federal court in Los Angeles, California on Wednesday. According to the motion, the plaintiff refused to stipulate to a stay, forcing the fitness equipment and media company to seek judicial intervention.
The case was filed earlier this year by a Southern California man and former Peloton sales associate. The complaint argued that the company committed various labor law violations including failure to pay certain wages like overtime compensation, provide meal and rest breaks, issue accurate statements, and reimburse business expenses.
The class action sought remediation on behalf of all similarly situated Peloton employees based in California. As previously reported, Peloton removed the case to federal court in early March.
Now, the defendant is asking to pause the proceeding while another California state case plays out. That case, filed two years before the instant one, and later consolidated with another California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) suit, asserts nearly identical causes of action and is awaiting final settlement approval. The hearing is scheduled for June 2, Peloton notes.
Despite the similarity between the suits, and the fact that the state case’s settlement will impact the plaintiff’s claims, he has refused to pause proceedings, the motion says. Peloton then presents the court with two reasons why it should grant the stay.
First, it points to an abstention doctrine favoring conservation of judicial resources and complete disposition of pending suits. Federal courts “routinely apply Colorado River to the precise facts at issue here—to stay later-filed federal actions that overlap with state court actions awaiting settlement approval,” Peloton claims.
Second, and in the event the court declines to apply Colorado River abstention, Peloton urges it to stay the case “under principles of judicial economy and fairness.” Peloton argues that the plaintiff will suffer no prejudice by being asked to wait, while on the other hand, “Peloton would be materially harmed by having to litigate the claims in one forum after reaching an agreement to resolve them in another.”
The plaintiff is represented by Beligan & Carnakis and Peloton by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
