Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 21, 2020
Docket1:20-cv-02481
StatusUnknown

This text of Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp. (Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K -------------------------------------------------------------X : ADELA MOLINA, et al., on behalf of themselves : and all others similarly situated : Plaintiffs : 20 Civ. 2481 (LGS) : -against- : ORDER : HUAXCUAXTLA RESTAURANT CORP., et al. : Defendants. X -------------------------------------------------------------

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have brought this action on behalf of a putative collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act; WHEREAS, the initial pretrial conference in this matter is scheduled for July 23, 2020; WHEREAS, no significant issues were raised in the parties’ joint letter or proposed case management plan. It is hereby ORDERED that the July 23, 2020, initial pretrial conference is cancelled. If the parties believe that a conference would nevertheless be useful, they should inform the court immediately so the conference can be reinstated. The case management plan and scheduling order will issue in a separate order. The parties’ attention is particularly directed to the provisions for periodic status letters, and the need for a pre-motion letter to avoid cancellation of the final conference and setting of a trial date. It is further ORDERED that, given the lenient standard for conditional certification, see Varghese v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Nos. 14 Civ. 1718, 15 Civ. 3023, 2016 WL 4718413, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2016) (“Plaintiff’s burden is minimal because the determination that the parties are similarly situated is merely a preliminary one . . . .” (quoting Lee v. ABC Carpet & Home, 236 F.R.D. 193, 197 (S.D.N.Y. 2006))), the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the possibility of stipulating to conditional certification and the form of notice, reserving all of Defendants’ rights to object to any final certification under the more rigorous standard that applies at that stage. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file any conditional certification motion by August 21, 2020, Defendants shall file any opposition by September 4, 2020, and Plaintiffs shall file any reply by September 11, 2020. A conference will be held on October 1, 2020, at 10:50 a.m. for an oral ruling on Plaintiffs’ conditional certification motion, should one be filed.

Dated: July 20, 2020 . New York, New York LORNA G. SCHOFIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lee v. ABC Carpet & Home
236 F.R.D. 193 (S.D. New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molina-v-huaxcuaxtla-restaurant-corp-nysd-2020.