28 Cited authorities

Westchester v. Mamaroneck
504 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 145 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was a substantial burden on the plaintiff school, in part because the school had demonstrated that it was expanding and that its existing buildings did not have sufficient space
Spicer v. Pier Sixty LLC
269 F.R.D. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Cited 116 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding commonality and typicality easily satisfied where all class members were subject to the same policies regarding their employers' distribution of a service charge
In re Painewebber Ltd. Partner. Litigation
147 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 141 times
Holding that the district court "reached the right conclusion when it declined to grant plaintiff an enlargement of the deadline date to opt out" and did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's "motion to exclude himself from the Class nearly a year after the deadline to do so had expired"
Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp.
255 F. Supp. 2d 184 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 123 times
Holding in FLSA context that “[a]n employer's characterization of an employee is not controlling, however, for otherwise there could be no enforcement of any minimum wage or overtime law”
Dominic v. Consolidated Edison Co of New York
822 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir. 1987) Cited 175 times
Holding an unfavorable transfer to constitute an adverse employment decision
Noonan v. Cunard Steamship Co.
375 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1967) Cited 171 times
Holding that mere inadvertence in failing to make a timely jury demand is not sufficient to justify relief under Rule 39(b)
Raymond v. International Business Machines
148 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 67 times
Holding that a court could order a jury trial due to excusable neglect, considering factors such as prejudice, reason for delay, duration, and whether the movant acted in good faith
Rosen v. Dick
639 F.2d 82 (2d Cir. 1980) Cited 99 times
In Rosen, the Second Circuit considered whether a defendant was entitled to a jury trial based on the jury demand of a co-defendant.
Cascone v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
702 F.2d 389 (2d Cir. 1983) Cited 86 times
Referring to § 4102(e) as "a broad grant of discretionary power."
COX v. C. H. MASLAND SONS, INC
607 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1980) Cited 89 times
In Cox v. C.H. Masland Sons, Inc., 607 F.2d 138 (1979), we reversed the district court's decision to remove a case from its jury calendar, although it had initially granted the plaintiff's untimely demand for jury trial.
Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 Cited 50,495 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."
Rule 81 - Applicability of the Rules in General; Removed Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 81 Cited 3,793 times 6 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "apply to proceedings for habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the practice in those proceedings: is not specified in a federal statute, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, or the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases; and (B) has previously conformed to the practice in civil actions."
Rule 38 - Right to a Jury Trial; Demand
Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 Cited 2,297 times 9 Legal Analyses
Explaining that a party waives its right to a jury trial by failing to properly request one
Rule 39 - Trial by Jury or by the Court
Fed. R. Civ. P. 39 Cited 1,847 times 10 Legal Analyses
Granting the trial court the power to determine that "a right of trial by jury of some or all of those issues does not exist under the Constitution or statutes of the United States"

Grant v. Warner Music Group Corp. et al

28 Cited authorities

Holding that there was a substantial burden on the plaintiff school, in part because the school had demonstrated that it was expanding and that its existing buildings did not have sufficient space

Finding commonality and typicality easily satisfied where all class members were subject to the same policies regarding their employers' distribution of a service charge

Holding that the district court "reached the right conclusion when it declined to grant plaintiff an enlargement of the deadline date to opt out" and did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's "motion to exclude himself from the Class nearly a year after the deadline to do so had expired"

Holding in FLSA context that “[a]n employer's characterization of an employee is not controlling, however, for otherwise there could be no enforcement of any minimum wage or overtime law”

Holding an unfavorable transfer to constitute an adverse employment decision

Holding that mere inadvertence in failing to make a timely jury demand is not sufficient to justify relief under Rule 39(b)

Holding that a court could order a jury trial due to excusable neglect, considering factors such as prejudice, reason for delay, duration, and whether the movant acted in good faith

In Rosen, the Second Circuit considered whether a defendant was entitled to a jury trial based on the jury demand of a co-defendant.

Referring to § 4102(e) as "a broad grant of discretionary power."

In Cox v. C.H. Masland Sons, Inc., 607 F.2d 138 (1979), we reversed the district court's decision to remove a case from its jury calendar, although it had initially granted the plaintiff's untimely demand for jury trial.

Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

Explaining that a party waives its right to a jury trial by failing to properly request one

Granting the trial court the power to determine that "a right of trial by jury of some or all of those issues does not exist under the Constitution or statutes of the United States"