Avraham Gold v. New York Life Insurance Co.
730 F.3d 137
2d Cir.2013Background
- Avraham Gold sued New York Life in federal court (CAFA) alleging unpaid overtime and unlawful wage deductions under New York Labor Law; proceeded as a putative class action.
- Gold worked as an insurance agent/registered representative paid solely by commissions; New York Life classified him as an "outside salesman," exempt from overtime.
- District court granted summary judgment for New York Life on the overtime claim (May 2011), denied Gold summary judgment on the wage-deduction claim, and allowed Gold to add liquidated damages but held the 2011 NYLL amendment not retroactive.
- Nearly three years after filing, New York Life moved to dismiss under CAFA’s home state exception (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B)), asserting >2/3 of class and primary defendant were New York citizens; Gold argued the defense was waived by delay.
- District court held the home state exception is non-jurisdictional, must be raised within a reasonable time, and New York Life did not waive it given the discovery schedule; it dismissed the action under the exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is CAFA’s home state exception jurisdictional? | Gold: implies non-jurisdictional but emphasizes waiver concerns. | New York Life: argued exception was jurisdictional and thus not waivable. | The exception is non-jurisdictional; Congress’s "decline to exercise" language means courts retain jurisdiction but may decline to exercise it. |
| Was New York Life’s delay in asserting the home state exception a waiver? | Gold: three-year delay was unreasonable; exception waived. | New York Life: delay excused by court-ordered bifurcated discovery that postponed class citizenship information. | Motions under the exception must be raised within a reasonable time; here district court did not abuse discretion in finding delay excused. |
| Does the 2011 amendment to N.Y. Lab. Law § 198(1-a) (increasing liquidated damages to 100%) apply retroactively? | Gold: statute is remedial and thus presumed retroactive; 2011 amendment applies to claims. | New York Life: amendment is not retroactive absent clear legislative intent. | 2011 amendment is not retroactive; lack of clear textual or legislative-history indication of retroactivity defeats Gold’s claim. |
| Was Gold properly classified as an "outside salesman" (entitled to exemption from overtime)? | Gold: his duties (research, investment recommendations, registered rep status) made him non-exempt. | New York Life: Gold’s primary duty was selling insurance; paid on commissions; regularly worked away from employer’s place of business. | On de novo review, Gold’s primary duty was sales; summary judgment for New York Life on overtime claim affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graphic Commc’ns Union v. CVS Caremark Corp., 636 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2011) (CAFA remand/local-controversy exception is non-jurisdictional and must be timely raised).
- Morrison v. YTB Int’l, Inc., 649 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 2011) (interpreting CAFA’s "decline to exercise" language as non-jurisdictional).
- Hamilton v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 197 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1999) (objection to personal jurisdiction may be waived if not timely raised).
- Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Cent. Sch. Dist., 91 N.Y.2d 577 (N.Y. 1998) (presumption against statutory retroactivity; text and history control).
- In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litig., 611 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2010) (standards for reviewing worker classification and overtime-exemption issues).