Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER. Based on Mr. Garnes' representation that he plans to arbitrate his discrimination claims, the Court deems the OTSC to be satisfied. Mr. Garnes shall promptly take the necessary steps to initiate arbitration, and the stays in Garnes I and Garnes II shall remain in effect pending completion of the arbitration. By March 6, 2024, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint letter in Garnes I concerning the status of the arbitration. Thereafter, unless the Court orders other wise, the parties shall meet and confer and file a further joint letter in Garnes I concerning the status of the arbitration every 30 days until the arbitration is completed. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave on 2/5/24) (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MARK GARNES,
Plaintiff,
-vPRITCHARD INDUSTRIES, INC.,

CIVIL ACTION NOS.: 20 Civ. 3843 (PAE) (SLC)
22 Civ. 10674 (PAE) (SLC)
ORDER

Defendant.
MARK GARNES,
Plaintiff,
-vPRITCHARD INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.
SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.
This Order concerns two cases brought by pro se Plaintiff Mark Garnes (“Mr. Garnes”)
alleging discrimination and other claims against his former employer, Defendant Pritchard
Industries, Inc. (“Pritchard”). See Garnes v. Pritchard Indus., Inc., No. 20 Civ. 3843 (PAE) (SLC)
(S.D.N.Y. filed May 18, 2020) (“Garnes I”); Garnes v. Pritchard Indus., Inc., No. 22 Civ. 10674 (PAE)
(SLC) (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 16, 2022) (“Garnes II”). 1 Pritchard filed motions to compel arbitration in
both cases, which the Court granted in relevant part. (See Garnes I, ECF Nos. 50; 52; Garnes II,
ECF Nos. 19; 22).

See Garnes v. Pritchard Indus., Inc., No. 22 Civ. 10674 (PAE) (SLC),

Although not addressed in this Order, Mr. Garnes has also filed two other actions in this Court against
Pritchard. See Garnes v. Pritchard Indus., Inc., No. 23 Civ. 6699 (PAE) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. filed July 28, 2023);
Garnes v. Pritchard Indus., Inc. and Loc. 32BJ SEIU, No. 23 Civ. 10707 (PAE) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 7, 2023).
1

2023 WL 5811038, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2023), adopted by 2023 WL 5744466 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6,
2023); Garnes v. Pritchard Indus., Inc., No. 20 Civ. 3843 (PAE) (SLC), 2023 WL 3980693, at *2–4
(S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2023), adopted by, 2023 WL 3977882 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2023). Accordingly,
Mr. Garnes was compelled to arbitrate his discrimination claims in both cases, and the cases were
stayed pending arbitration. (See Garnes I, ECF No. 52 at 2; Garnes II, ECF No. 22 at 4).
On December 13, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint status letter in Garnes I
reporting on the status of the arbitration. (Garnes I, ECF No. 53). In response, Pritchard filed a
letter stating that Mr. Garnes’ union, Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ
(the “Union”) had declined to arbitrate Mr. Garnes’ discrimination claims, and that Mr. Garnes
had elected not to initiate arbitration as required under the applicable collective bargaining
agreements (the “CBAs”). (Garnes I, ECF Nos. 54; 54-1). Mr. Garnes responded that the Union
had declined to arbitrate his claims and that he would not do so on his own initiative because he
did not have the “means[] monetarily” to do so. (Garnes I, ECF No. 55). Pritchard filed a reply
letter noting that, under the CBAs, “even where the individual is proceeding individually and not
via the Union, the cost of mediation . . . is covered by the Union and the Realty Advisory Board
on Labor Relations . . . , and the arbitrator’s fees are covered solely by the [e]mployer.” (Garnes I,
ECF No. 56).
On January 2, 2024, the Court ordered Mr. Garnes to show cause in Garnes I by January 16,
2024 as to why: (i) the stay should not be lifted, (ii) his discrimination claims should not be
dismissed, and (iii) the Court should not set a deadline for him to file a Second Amended
Complaint with respect to the nonarbitrable claims only. (Garnes I, ECF No. 57 at 4 (the “OTSC”)).
The OTSC warned Mr. Garnes, in bold and capitalized typeface, that “the failure to respond to this

2

Order to Show Cause by January 16, 2024 may result in the Court issuing a recommendation to
Judge Engelmayer to dismiss all or part of this case, with or without prejudice.” (Id.) On
January 31, 2024, over two weeks past Mr. Garnes’ deadline, he filed a letter in response to the
OTSC. (Garnes I, ECF No. 58). Mr. Garnes asserts that, having learned that he is not required to
pay for the bulk of the costs and fees associated with arbitrating his claims, he now plans to
arbitrate on his own initiative. (Id. at 1 (“in light of this fact, the employer’s liability to cover cost
for arbitration being a burden Plaintiff is not to endure, this matter of arbitration shall be pursued
accordingly”)).
Accordingly, based on Mr. Garnes’ representation that he plans to arbitrate his
discrimination claims, the Court deems the OTSC to be satisfied. Mr. Garnes shall promptly take
the necessary steps to initiate arbitration, and the stays in Garnes I and Garnes II shall remain in
effect pending completion of the arbitration. By March 6, 2024, the parties shall meet and confer
and file a joint letter in Garnes I concerning the status of the arbitration. Thereafter, unless the
Court orders otherwise, the parties shall meet and confer and file a further joint letter in Garnes I
concerning the status of the arbitration every 30 days until the arbitration is completed.
Dated:

New York, New York
February 5, 2024

SO ORDERED.

3