From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rudd v. T.L. Cannon Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Mar 3, 2011
10-CV-0591 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011)

Summary

finding that plaintiffs did not establish commonality and typicality where the record contained references to the existence of an unlawful policy at "ten stores out of fifty-three New York locations"

Summary of this case from Rosario v. Valentine Ave. Discount Store, Co.

Opinion

10-CV-0591.

March 3, 2011


DECISION and ORDER


This matter is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, and was referred to the Hon. David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).

No objections to the January 4, 2011 Report-Recommendation have been raised. After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that:

23

(1) Certification of this action as a collective action for purposes of the FLSA is GRANTED IN PART, as stated in Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation; (2) Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure with regard to the claims under New York Labor Law are DENIED without prejudice; (3) Plaintiffs are permitted to engage in discovery initially focusing upon the Rule 23 certifications issues; and (4) The parties negotiate and submit to the Court, within thirty days, either a form collective action notice acceptable to both parties or, alternatively, counter-proposed language for inclusion in such a notice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2011


Summaries of

Rudd v. T.L. Cannon Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Mar 3, 2011
10-CV-0591 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011)

finding that plaintiffs did not establish commonality and typicality where the record contained references to the existence of an unlawful policy at "ten stores out of fifty-three New York locations"

Summary of this case from Rosario v. Valentine Ave. Discount Store, Co.

limiting the collective action to employees at one Applebee's location where the submitted affidavits "fall short of identifying a particular policy or practice applied by the defendants uniformly across the board at all of their locations"

Summary of this case from Hannah v. Huntington Nat'l Bank
Case details for

Rudd v. T.L. Cannon Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ANN MARIE RUDD, MATTHEW ROACH, MELISSA LONGO, JENNIFER DOTY, and GARRETT…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Mar 3, 2011

Citations

10-CV-0591 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011)

Citing Cases

Rosario v. Valentine Ave. Discount Store, Co.

While plaintiff has not produced declarations from employees of every named defendant corporation, the record…

Hannah v. Huntington Nat'l Bank

Chang's restaurant location justified certification at those specific restaurants, but did not warrant…