1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers E. v. PSC Cmty. Servs.

634 F.Supp.3d 158

1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, Petitioner, v. PSC COMMUNITY SERVICES, et al., Respondents.

20-cv-3611 (JGK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Signed October 11, 2022

James Michael Reif, Gladstein, Reif, Meginniss, New York, NY, Kimberly Lehmann, Laureve Daniele Blackstone, Levy Ratner, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Michael Patrick Collins, Mallory Campbell, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, New York, NY, for Respondent PSC Community Services.

James Joseph Sawczyn, Patrick G. Brady, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Newark, NJ, Michael D. Thompson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Newark, NJ, for Respondent New Partners, Inc.

Philip K. Davidoff, FordHarrison LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Stella Orton Home Care Agency, Richmond Home Needs, Sunnyside Home Care Project, Sunnyside Citywide Home Care.

Philip K. Davidoff, Andrew Williamson, Jeffrey Alan Shooman, FordHarrison LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Family Home Care of Brooklyn and Queens, Care at Home.

Kenneth Harold Kirschner, David Justin Baron, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, United Jewish Council of the East Side Home Attendant Service Corp.

Douglas Joseph Klein, Felice B. Ekelman, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Christopher Michael Repole, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondent The First Chinese Presbyterian Community Affairs Home Attendant Corp.

Christopher Michael Repole, Douglas Joseph Klein, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Eric Philip Simon, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents Azor Home Care, Bushwick Stuyvesant Heights Home Attendant, Inc., CABS Homecare, Riverspring Licensed Homecare Services Agency, Inc., St. Nicholas Human Supports Corp., Wartburg.

Christopher Michael Repole, Felice B. Ekelman, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents Alliance for Health, Inc., AccentCare of NY, Inc.

Ira David Wincott, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC, New Hyde Park, NY, Lisa Marie Griffith, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Melville, NY, for Respondent Region Care, Inc.

Richard Jay Reibstein, Locke Lord LLP, New York, NY, for Respondent Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc.

Robert F. Milman, Milman Labuda Law Roup PLLC, New York, NY, for Respondent RAIN, Inc.

Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., River Edge, NJ, Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York, NY, Shannon Danielle Azzaro, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents Prestige Home Care, Inc., Prestige Home Attendant, Inc., Personal Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. James E. McGrath, III, Rebecca Kim Kimura, Putney Twombly Hall & Hirson LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Priority Home Services, Premier Home Health Care, Inc.

Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., River Edge, NJ, Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents ABC Health Services Registry, Personal Touch LI, Personal Touch WC.

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

This action arises out of arbitration proceedings involving petitioner 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (the "Union") and the respondents, a group of home care agencies licensed to provide home care services in New York. The Union filed two petitions for confirmation of arbitration awards pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185, the first seeking to confirm an award addressing issues of arbitrability and jurisdiction, and the second seeking to confirm an award resolving the Union's grievance against the respondents on the merits. Both awards (the "Awards") were rendered according to procedures set forth in collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") between the Union and the respondents. This Court confirmed the first award in an opinion dated February 19, 2021, see 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers E. v. PSC Cmty. Servs., 520 F. Supp. 3d 588 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) ("First Confirmation Order"), and the second in an opinion dated June 24, 2022, see 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers E. v. PSC Cmty. Servs., No. 20-cv-3611, 608 F.Supp.3d 50, 55-56 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2022) ("Second Confirmation Order").

One of the respondents in this case, United Jewish Council of the East Side Home Attendant Service Corp. ("UJC"), now seeks a preliminary and/or permanent injunction enjoining three former Union members, Epifania Hichez, Carmen Carrasco, and Seferina Acosta (collectively, the "Hichez plaintiffs"), from prosecuting putative class claims brought against UJC in an action currently pending in the New York State Supreme Court. See Hichez v. United Jewish Counsel of the East Side Home Attendant Service Corp., No. 653250/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 14, 2017) (the "State Court Action"). UJC requests the injunction pursuant to the All Writs Act("AWA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and argues that the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act ("AIA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2283, permits the issuance of the injunction.

For the following reasons, UJC's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Hichez plaintiffs from further pursuing putative class claims in the State Court Action is granted.¹

I.

The Court assumes familiarity with its Confirmation Orders, which describe the background of this dispute in detail. See generally First Confirmation Order, 520 F. Supp. 3d at 594-98; Second Confirmation Order, 2022 WL 2292736, at *1-4. The facts relevant to resolving UJC's motion are set forth below and constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.²

The Union is a labor union that serves as the sole and exclusive representative for UJC's home health aide employees, including for purposes of collective bargaining over the terms and conditions of their employment. See First Confirmation Order, 520 F. Supp. 3d at 594. UJC, like the other respondents in this action, is a licensed home care agency. Id. At all relevant times, the Union was a party to CBAs with each of the respondents, including UJC. Id. at 594-95. In late 2015, the Union and the various respondents executed a memorandum of agreement (the "2015 MOA") that amended the CBAs. Id. at 595. The 2015 MOA laid out an alternative dispute resolution process through which all claims arising under the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"), the New York Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law (the "Parity Law"), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") (collectively, the "Covered Statutes") must be resolved. Id. As pertinent here, the 2015 MOA required that "all claims brought by either the Union or Employees" for violations of the Covered Statutes must first proceed through a grievance procedure or mediation and, if not resolved through those mechanisms, must be submitted to "final and binding arbitration." Id. at 595-96.

The Hichez plaintiffs are former UJC employees who claim to have ceased their employment with UJC before the Union executed the 2015 MOA.³ See Pl.'s Opp'n, ECF No. 273, at 2. On June 14, 2017, the Hichez plaintiffs brought the State Court Action as a putative "class action," alleging that UJC had systematically underpaid its home care employees in violation of the NYLL, the Parity Law, and other wage-and-hours provisions. See Kirschner Decl., Ex. B, ECF No. 267-2, ¶¶ 1, 55-84. As indicated in their amended complaint, the Hichez plaintiffs seek both damages and injunctive relief "on behalf of a class" of "[a]ll home care aides . . . employed by [UJC] in New York to provide care services to [UJC's] elderly and disabled clients in the clients' homes during the period beginning from June 14, 2011 until November 30, 2015." Id., Ex. L, ECF No. 267-12, ¶ 16.

On July 25, 2017, UJC moved in the State Court Action to compel arbitration pursuant to the 2015 MOA. See Kirschner Decl., Ex. C, ECF No. 267-3. The state trial court denied the motion on the ground that "the [Hichez] plaintiffs, who were no longer employed by UJC when the [2015] MOA was signed, [were] not bound by" the 2015 MOA's arbitration provision. See Hichez v. United Jewish Council of the East Side, Home Attendant Service Corp., No. 653250/2017, 2018 WL 4466257, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 18, 2018). The court appeared to cabin its conclusion regarding the nonbinding nature of the 2015 MOA to the named Hichez plaintiff's themselves, stating that "[w]hen and if" those plaintiffs "move[ ] to certify the class they seek to represent," the "scope of that class and its implications will be considered." Id.

UJC appealed from the denial of its motion to compel arbitration and also moved for reconsideration of that decision in the state trial court. See Kirschner Decl. ¶ 7. The trial court thereafter denied the motion for reconsideration but stayed the State Court Action pending resolution of UJC's appeal. See Hichez v. United Jewish Council of the East Side Home Attendant Service Corp., No. 653250/2017, 2019 WL 2745063, at *3-4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 1, 2019).

On January 2, 2019, while UJC's appeal and motion for reconsideration in the State Court Action were pending, the Union filed a class action grievance against UJC and the other respondents for "violations of the CBAs regarding wage and hour claims arising under the Covered Statutes." First Confirmation Order, 530 F. Supp. 3d at 596. The Union pursued this grievance "on behalf of all of [its] home care bargaining members," a group potentially encompassing over 100,000 current and former home care employees. Kirschner Decl. ¶ 8; see First Confirmation Order, 530 F. Supp. 3d at 594. Pursuant to the 2015 MOA and the CBAs, certain parties to the Union's grievance participated in a mediation. See First Confirmation Order, 520 F. Supp. 3d at 596. On December 24, 2019, the arbitrator declared that the mediation had concluded and directed the parties to brief two threshold issues related to arbitration: (1) whether the claims of former and current Union members were arbitrable; and (2) whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction over those claims "irrespective of whether...