§Why CasetextPricing

D'Antuono et al v. Service Road Corp. et al

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION denying 126 Motion for Summary Judgment The Court Finds for Ms. Cruz on the question of whether her declaration is sufficient to meet notice requirement, allowing the case to continue, notice should be issued to potential class members. Signed

12 Cited authorities

  1. McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co.

    486 U.S. 128 (1988)   Cited 1,946 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "plain language" of the Fair Labor Standards Act's "willful" liquidated damages standard requires that "the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute," without regard to the outrageousness of the conduct at issue

  2. Harkins v. Riverboat Servs., Inc.

    385 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 130 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a jury question was presented as to whether plaintiffs were performing sufficient maritime work to qualify as seamen under FLSA

  3. Mendez v. the Radec Corp.

    260 F.R.D. 38 (W.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 47 times
    Finding named plaintiff's signed affirmation, filed in support of the plaintiffs' first motion for class certification, was sufficient to satisfy the consent requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)

  4. D'antuono v. Serv. Rd. Corp..

    789 F. Supp. 2d 308 (D. Conn. 2011)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the burden of establishing unconscionability lies with the party asserting it as a contract defense

  5. Manning v. Gold Belt Falcon, LLC

    817 F. Supp. 2d 451 (D.N.J. 2011)   Cited 23 times
    Explaining that the statute "does not dictate the form consent must take, but only that consent be written and filed with the Court"

  6. GONZALEZ v. EL ACAJUTLA RESTAURANT INC

    CV 04-1513 (JO) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2007)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the owner's conclusory assertion that his restaurant, deli and laundromat operated separately and therefore should not be treated as a single enterprise for purposes of the FLSA was "not sufficient to overcome" Plaintiffs' allegations that the owner comingled funds between businesses and treated plaintiffs "in a fungible and interchangeable manner"

  7. Arrington v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.

    531 F. Supp. 498 (D.D.C. 1982)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that although a third-party plaintiff maintained that a third-party defendant would eventually be liable based on its "fomenting" the action, "such liability is insufficient to meet the `derivative' requirements of Rule 14"

  8. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,220 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  9. Section 201 - Short title

    29 U.S.C. § 201   Cited 20,887 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Setting fourteen as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work

  10. Section 216 - Penalties

    29 U.S.C. § 216   Cited 16,327 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”

  11. Section 255 - Statute of limitations

    29 U.S.C. § 255   Cited 4,528 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that not all FLSA wage and overtime claims are willful

  12. Section 256 - Determination of commencement of future actions

    29 U.S.C. § 256   Cited 911 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing that an opt-in plaintiff's action commences, for purposes of the limitations period, when he files his written consent to join