1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KOLY CAMARA,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 18-724 (JEB)

MASTRO’S RESTAURANTS LLC,

 Defendant.

ORDER

After this Court denied Defendant Mastro’s Restaurants LLC’s motion to compel 

arbitration in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, Mastro’s appealed. It now asks this Court to 

stay further litigation until that appeal is resolved. Believing the appeal to be frivolous, Plaintiff 

Koly Camara maintains the Court should forge onward or, in the alternative, at least allow the 

parties to move forward with notice to other potential collective-action members. The Court 

chooses door number two; it will thus stay the matter except for the provision of notice. 

Even Plaintiff acknowledges that, as long as Defendant’s appeal from this Court’s denial 

of its motion to arbitrate is not frivolous, such appeal divests this Court of jurisdiction regarding 

those aspects of the case on appeal. See ECF No. 38 (Opp.) at 2 (citing Bombardier Corp. v. 

Nat’l Railroad Passenger Corp., 2002 WL 31818924, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 12, 2002)). Faced 

with this daunting standard, Camara nonetheless asserts that Mastro’s appeal is frivolous. See

Opp. at 3–6. Although the Court indeed sided with him on the merits, it does not believe that the 

company’s position in that round of briefing can be characterized as frivolous.
2

The harder question asks whether all proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome 

of the appeal, particularly the notice measures. Camara points out that waiting would prejudice 

his class members because the statute of limitations is not tolled pending the appeal and anyone 

who did not opt in before the deadline would thus be excluded. Id. at 6–7. Mastro’s does not 

deny that this is the law but argues that it would be “confusing to its employees and disruptive to 

[its] operations” should the many potential class members who have allegedly signed arbitration 

agreements receive such notice. See ECF No. 35 (Motion to Stay) at 4–5. The Court thinks this 

is a very modest detriment to proceeding with the issuance of notice and is far outweighed both 

by the potential barring of untimely opt-ins and by the increased likelihood that a delay could 

render class members more difficult to contact. Defendant’s other arguments regarding the 

expense of litigation pending appeal, id. at 3–4, are irrelevant here, as the Court is only requiring 

the provision of server information and not permitting other proceedings. See, e.g., Gaffers v. 

Kelly Services, Inc., 2016 WL 8919156, at *2–3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 13, 2016) (permitting only 

opt-in proceedings to continue during appeal of denial of motion to compel arbitration).

The best course, therefore, is to require Mastro’s to provide Plaintiff the information that 

the Court previously ordered and for Camara to go ahead and contact those potential class 

members. Defendant alternatively requested a 14-day extension of its deadline, which the Court 

will grant, along with the other procedural requests agreed to by the parties. The case will 

otherwise be stayed pending the resolution of the appeal.

The Court, accordingly, ORDERS that:

1. Defendant’s [35] Motion to Stay is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

2. The litigation is STAYED pending the outcome of Defendant’s appeal with the 

following exceptions;
3

3. Defendant by December 10, 2018, shall provide Plaintiff in Excel format with the full 

name, last known mailing address, last known email address, and last known phone 

number of each server in the conditionally certified collective;

4. By December 3, 2018, Defendant shall notify Plaintiff of the approximate size of the 

potential membership of the collective action;

5. Plaintiff shall have until February 19, 2019, to file any additional consent-to-join-suit 

forms; and

6. Plaintiff’s [41] Motion to Enforce is DENIED as moot given this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ James E. Boasberg

 JAMES E. BOASBERG

 United States District Judge

Date: November 26, 2018