9 Cited authorities

Chambers v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
428 F. App'x 400 (5th Cir. 2011) Cited 100 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that for appliance repairmen, "logging in to receive the first assignment in the morning" is non-compensable
Davis v. Novastar Mortg., Inc.
408 F. Supp. 2d 811 (W.D. Mo. 2005) Cited 117 times
Holding that, at the notice stage, conditional certification "requires nothing more than substantial allegations that the putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy or plan."
Romero v. La Revise Assocs.
968 F. Supp. 2d 639 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) Cited 70 times
Holding that "courts have consistently held that the existence of arbitration agreements is irrelevant to collective action approval because it raises a merits-based determination"
Pereira v. Foot Locker, Inc.
261 F.R.D. 60 (E.D. Pa. 2009) Cited 50 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding a ninety-day opt-in period to be reasonable
Prescott v. Prudential Ins. Co.
729 F. Supp. 2d 357 (D. Me. 2010) Cited 44 times
Concluding that employees in both Maine and New Jersey could be part of the collective action where "one opt-in reported to a supervisor in New Jersey, and one opt-in works in New Jersey," there was evidence that employees were subject to the same general practices, and their units had been set up by a manager who worked in Maine and New Jersey
In re Bank of Am. Wage & Hour Emp't Litig.
286 F.R.D. 572 (D. Kan. 2012) Cited 38 times
Rejecting certification of statewide class where plaintiffs offered 100 declarations out of putative class of 35,000
ALI v. PETROLEUM
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-cv-0170 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2009) Cited 33 times
Holding that, under the facts of that case, one affidavit was not enough to support conditional certification
Whittington v. Taco Bell of Am., Inc.
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01884-KMT-MEH (D. Colo. May. 10, 2011) Cited 13 times
Finding that defendant's evidence "does not state that Plaintiff signed an Agreement to Arbitrate and Defendants have not provided an Agreement to Arbitrate executed by Plaintiff"
Vargas v. General Nutrition Ctrs., Inc.
2:10-cv-867 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2012) Cited 4 times
2:10-cv-867 08-16-2012 DOMINIC VARGAS, ANNE HICKOK on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL NUTRITION CENTERS, INC. A Delaware Corporation and GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendants. Terrence F. McVerry MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Now pending before the Court is PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION, Doc. No. 53, with brief in support, Doc. No, 57, and an appendix comprised of numerous volumes of various records, documents, and transcripts

Maddy et al v. General Electric Company

9 Cited authorities

Holding that for appliance repairmen, "logging in to receive the first assignment in the morning" is non-compensable

Holding that, at the notice stage, conditional certification "requires nothing more than substantial allegations that the putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy or plan."

Holding that "courts have consistently held that the existence of arbitration agreements is irrelevant to collective action approval because it raises a merits-based determination"

Finding a ninety-day opt-in period to be reasonable

Rejecting certification of statewide class where plaintiffs offered 100 declarations out of putative class of 35,000

Holding that, under the facts of that case, one affidavit was not enough to support conditional certification

Finding that defendant's evidence "does not state that Plaintiff signed an Agreement to Arbitrate and Defendants have not provided an Agreement to Arbitrate executed by Plaintiff"