From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brabham v. Mega Tempering & Glass Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jul 3, 2013
13-CV-54(JG) (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 3, 2013)

Summary

ordering that opt-in forms be returned to the Court as the alternative approach could "discourage potential opt-in plaintiffs from seeking outside counsel" and delay tolling of the statute of limitations

Summary of this case from Zhongle Chen v. Kicho Corp.

Opinion

13-CV-54(JG)

07-03-2013

WILLIAM BRABHAM, et al. Plaintiff, v. MEGA TEMPERING & Glass Corp., IOANNIS "JOHN" MARIOLIS and ABC CORPORATIONS #1-10, Jointly and Severally, Defendants.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER

JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Scanlon issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on June 11, 2013 regarding plaintiffs' motion to have this lawsuit conditionally certified as a collective action and asking for leave to issue a court-authorized notice to potential plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. [ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11.] Any objection to the R&R was due no later than June 28, 2013. No objections have been filed.

There being no objection to the R&R, it is adopted. Therefore, the following rulings are ordered:

1) Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA is granted;

2) Defendants' motion regarding the notice term such that Plaintiffs must use a three-year notice term is granted;

3) Defendants' motion that Plaintiffs' notice may not use the word "class" is granted;

4) Defendants' motion that Plaintiffs move the right-to-retain language to a different section is denied;

5) Defendants' motion that Plaintiffs must edit the notice and consent forms so that consent forms are returnable to the Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York is granted;
6) Defendants are ordered to produce contact information for potential opt-in plaintiffs so that Plaintiffs know where to send notice;

7) The contact information for opt-in plaintiffs shall include the following: (a) potential opt-in plaintiffs' name, job title, address, dates of employment, and location of employment, and (b) potential opt-in plaintiff's email addresses and telephone numbers if Defendants have them;

8) Defendants' motion that they need not produce potential opt-in plaintiffs' birth dates and Social Security numbers is granted;

9) Defendants are ordered to make this production within fifteen days of the District Judge's adoption of this report, if the District Judge indeed adopts this report.

So ordered.

John Gleeson, U.S.D.J. Dated: July 3, 2013

Brooklyn, New York


Summaries of

Brabham v. Mega Tempering & Glass Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jul 3, 2013
13-CV-54(JG) (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 3, 2013)

ordering that opt-in forms be returned to the Court as the alternative approach could "discourage potential opt-in plaintiffs from seeking outside counsel" and delay tolling of the statute of limitations

Summary of this case from Zhongle Chen v. Kicho Corp.

ordering that opt-in forms be returned to the Court, as the alternative approach could "discourage potential opt-in plaintiffs from seeking outside counsel" and delay tolling of the statute of limitations

Summary of this case from Djurdjevich v. Flat Rater Movers, Ltd.
Case details for

Brabham v. Mega Tempering & Glass Corp.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM BRABHAM, et al. Plaintiff, v. MEGA TEMPERING & Glass Corp.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Jul 3, 2013

Citations

13-CV-54(JG) (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 3, 2013)

Citing Cases

Dilonez v. Fox Linen Serv. Inc.

The most compelling reason for requiring opt-in plaintiffs to submit their consent forms to the Clerk of the…

Castillo v. Perfume Worldwide Inc.

This determination is typically based on the pleadings, affidavits and declarations submitted by the…