Sarikaputar v. Veratip Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York

Sarikaputar v. Veratip Corp.

Trial Court Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Paranee Sarikaputar, et al., DATE FILED: __06/04/2024__ Plaintiffs, 1:19-cv-11168 (ALC) (SDA) -against- ORDER Veratip Corp., et al., Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: WHEREAS, the parties were required to “submit a proposed notice to be sent to members of the putative collective for the Court's review and approvall[,]” (5/3/24 Memo Endorsement, ECF No. 95); and WHEREAS, the Court reviewed the “Proposed Court Authorized Notice of

29 U.S.C. § 216

(b) Collective Action” filed at ECF No. 100-1 (the “Proposed Notice”), which the parties stipulated to but-for a “sole issue” related to inclusion of the names of all Defendants in the Proposed Notice (Pl.’s 5/24/24 Ltr., ECF No. 100); and WHEREAS, the Court issued an Order to permit the names of all Defendants on the Proposed Notice (5/30/24 Order, ECF No. 102). NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED the Proposed Notice is approved in substantially the same form provided to the Court.

* “Under the FLSA, the content of the notice is left to the court's discretion.” Delaney v. Geisha N.Y.C., LLC,

261 F.R.D. 55, 59

(S.D.N.Y. 2009); accord Lopez v. JVA Indus., Inc., No. 14-CV-09988 (KPF),

2015 WL 5052575

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2015) (noting that the FLSA “vests the district court with broad discretion” with respect to the notice of pending litigation to be provided to potential opt-in plaintiffs). * See Manfredo v. VIP Auto Grp. Of Long Island, Inc., No. 20-CV-03728 (MKB) (AYS),

2021 WL 4958907

, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2021) (granting motion for certifying a conditional collective and a proposed notice,

SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York June 4, 2024

STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge

with a few modifications, where the parties stipulated to the proposed notice); Chowdhury v. Duane Reade, Inc., No. 06-CV-02295 (GEL),

2007 WL 2873929

, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2007) (“The Court expects the parties to work out those issues on their own, and provide the Court with the stipulated notice.”); Spencer v. No Parking Today, Inc., No. 12-CV-06323 (ALC) (AJP),

2013 WL 1040052

, at *28 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2013) (directing that a joint proposed notice be submitted to the court for review))

Reference

Status
Unknown