Symczyk v. Genesis Healthcare Corp..

15 Citing briefs

  1. Gunn v. NPC International, Inc.

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss and for Entry of Judgment

    Filed April 15, 2013

    This (at least in part) illustrates the problem the Symczyk court discussed where it lamented that tactics such as trying to settle with named plaintiffs to delay (or otherwise prevent) a court from issuing notice “deprive[s] potential opt-ins whose claims are in jeopardy of expiring of the opportunity to toll the limitations period — and preserve their entitlements to recovery — by filing consents within the prescribed window.” Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 200. The Court should stop these — in NPC’s words — shenanigans6 and enter an order establishing NPC’s liability to Ms. Gunn and those similarly situated to her, followed by a Rule 26(f) conference to move forward and preserve the claims of those who have yet to receive notice.

  2. Freeman et al v. Sam's East Inc. et al

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed August 29, 2018

    Mere speculation from the plaintiff, by contrast, is not sufficient to meet this burden. Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 192-93; Kronick v. Bebe Stores, Inc., No. 07-cv-4514, 2008 WL 4546368, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2008) (denying conditional certification where the plaintiffs “assert generalized assumptions and effectively assume a similar situation for themselves and the prospective class”). Plaintiff fails this test.

  3. Radio Music License Committee, Inc. v. Sesac, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed February 23, 2015

    The Court certainly cannot conclude now, without the benefit of that evidence, that there is no way that RMLC could obtain the injunctive relief that it seeks. Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 195 (case is moot only when plaintiff could not even “potentially” recover relief it seeks at trial). If RMLC secures a judgment in its favor at trial, as the above discussion reflects, there undoubtedly will be extensive debate between the parties over the scope of the appropriate remedy for that antitrust violation.

  4. Freeman et al v. Sam's East Inc. et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion

    Filed September 26, 2018

    In Symczyk, the Third Circuit explicitly held “after discovery, and with the benefit of ‘a much thicker record than it had at the notice stage,’ a court” then “makes a conclusive determination as to whether each plaintiff who has opted in to the collective action is in fact similarly situated to the named plaintiff.” 656 F.3d at 183 (emphasis supplied)(quoting Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1261). IV.

  5. Tompkins et al v. Farmers Group, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM/OPINION THAT FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING NOTICE TO SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. 216

    Filed August 18, 2015

    Then, following this initial stage, “[a]fter discovery, and with the benefit of ‘a much thicker record than it had at the notice stage,’ [the] court . . . makes a conclusive determination as to whether each plaintiff who has opted in to the collective action is in fact similarly situated to the named plaintiff.” Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 193 (quoting Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1261 (11th Cir. 2008)). If the plaintiff satisfies its burden at this second stage, “the case may proceed to trial as a collective action.”

  6. Lapan et al v. Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Certify Class

    Filed March 7, 2014

    Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73090, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2006). Citing Damassia, in the leading case of Myers v. Hertz Corp. (followed by, for example, the Third Circuit in Symczyk, 656 F.3d 189 at 194, and Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 691 F.3d 527, 536 n.4 (3d. Cir.

  7. Bustamante v. D.O. Productions, Llc et al

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

    Filed December 6, 2016

    To establish an individual is similarly situated, a plaintiff “must produce some evidence, ‘beyond mere speculation,’ of a factual nexus between the manner in which the employer’s alleged policy affected her and the manner in which it affected other employees.” Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 656 F.3d 189, 193 (3d Cir. 2011). Plaintiff’s opposition improperly relies on nothing more than mere speculation that the Sanitors are similarly situated to the remaining production employees involved in this litigation and, therefore, these claims must be dismissed.

  8. Berkson et al v. Gogo LLC et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Change Venue MOTION to Compel MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed June 12, 2014

    Likewise, the Third Circuit has explained: Requiring multiple plaintiffs to bring separate actions, which effectively could be ‘picked off’ by a defendant's tender of judgment before an affirmative ruling on class certification could be obtained, obviously would frustrate the objectives of class actions; moreover it would invite waste of judicial resources by stimulating successive suits brought by others claiming aggrievement. Symczyk v. Genesis HealthCare Corp., 656 F.3d 189, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 100 S. Ct. 1166, (1980)); see also Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 651 F.2d 1030, 1050 (5th Cir. 1981).

  9. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. et al v. the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed August 20, 2012

    When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff “bear[s] the burden of persuasion.” Symczyk v. Genesis HealthCare Corp., 656 F.3d 189, 191 n.4 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). - 7 - Case 2:09-cv-04607-MMB Document 92 Filed 08/20/12 Page 13 of 24 ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING TO PURSUE THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM A. Because There Is No Prospect of Inspections Taking Place in the Immediate Future, Plaintiffs Cannot Establish an Injury-in-Fact Sufficient to Warrant Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs seek, through their Fourth Amendment claim, to enjoin any future inspections pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257 or 2257A.

  10. Hartman v. Medicredit, Inc.

    BRIEF in Support re Motion to Dismiss

    Filed October 20, 2016

    When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff must bear the burden of persuasion. Symczyk v. Genesis HealthCare Corp., 656 F.3d 189, 191 n.4 (3d Cir. 2011). Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary is affirmatively proven by the plaintiff.