Courts in this district have found allegations of a similar detail sufficient to satisfy a plaintiff's low evidentiary burden at this stage. See, e.g., Neris v. R.J.D. Constr., Inc., No. 18-CV-1701 (ADS)(AKT), 2019 WL 1458239, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (plaintiff alleged that plaintiff “personally witnessed co-workers working more than 40 hours each week because he worked with them,” “co-workers discussed the lack of overtime amongst themselves” and that plaintiff knows others were similarly situated because they all completed and signed two separate time sheets); Iriarte v. Redwood Deli & Catering, Inc., No. 07-CV-5062 (FB)(SMG), 2008 WL 2622929, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 30, 2008) (plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to maintain time records and that he observed co-workers that engaged in the same or similar duties working more than forty hours but did not identify any other employees).
The Court finds that these factual allegations are sufficient to establish a factual nexus between Plaintiff's situation and that of the waitresses/waiters and sushi chefs such that they are similarly situated "victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law." See Neris v. R.J.D. Constr., Inc., No. 18-CV-1701, 2019 WL 1458239, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (granting conditional certification based on plaintiff's affidavit alleging failure to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 where plaintiff stated that he was aware, based on personal conversations and observations, of other employees who were similarly situated); see alsoWraga, 2006 WL 2443554, at *2 (granting motion to certify collective action based on single plaintiff's affidavit alleging failure to pay overtime where he stated that he was aware, based upon personal conversations, of approximately 18 other employees who were subject to the same policies); see alsoGjurovich, 282 F. Supp. 2d at 96 (granting conditional certification where plaintiff's declaration "identified by name a number of current or former ... employees who held the same or similar positions as the Plaintiff ... who, like Plaintiff, were paid a fixed weekly salary, and may not have received overtime compensation if he or she worked in excess of forty hours each week").
See Shibetti v. Z Rest., Diner & Lounge, Inc., 478 F.Supp.3d 403, 413 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (“[T]here is a crucial difference between a plaintiff averring that ‘I have spoken to other employees and they tell me they are treated the same,' as opposed to, ‘I have spoken to [e.g.] Jane Alexander, Joan Smith, and each of them has also told me that they received no tip credit and worked an unpaid training period'[;] [at the conditional certification stage,] [t]he former ... is not adequate, but the latter probably is.”); Chui v. Am. Yuexianggui of LI LLC, No. 18-CV-5091, 2020 WL 3618892, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2020) (granting conditional certification where “Plaintiff identifies three waitresses and one sushi chef with whom she had conversations who were not properly paid overtime”); Neris v. R.J.D. Constr., Inc., No. 18-CV-1701, 2019 WL 1458239, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (granting conditional certification based on plaintiff's affidavit alleging failure to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 where plaintiff stated that he was aware, based on personal conversations and observations, of other employees who were similarly situated); Qing Gu v. T.C. Chikurin, Inc., No. 13-CV-2322, 2014 WL 1515877, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2014) (“Courts in this Circuit have commonly authorized the sending of collective action notices where plaintiff includes some probative information regarding similarly situated employees such as their names, their duties and their hours worked or where plaintiff provides affidavits from such employees setting forth the pertinent facts.”) (collecting cases). That Plaintiff relies only on his own declaration does not preclude conditional certification.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to establish a nexus between the situation of Plaintiffs and the other sign installers as possible victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. See Neris v. R.J.D. Constr., Inc., No. 18-CV-1701 (ADS) (AKT), 2019 WL 1458239, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (finding “assertions are sufficient to meet Plaintiff's ‘lenient' evidentiary showing: they set forth a plausible factual nexus connecting Plaintiff and other specifically named employees of Defendants by way of Defendants' failure to pay each of them overtime wages.
A magistrate judge can grant or deny conditional certification of an FLSA collective action because “such a determination is a non-dispositive matter.” Chui, 2020 WL 3618892, at *1 n.1 (quoting Bijoux v. Amerigroup N.Y., LLC, No. 14-CV-3891, 2015 WL 5444944, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2015)); Neris v. R.J.D. Constr., Inc., No. 18-CV-1701, 2019 WL 1458239, at *2 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (same); Garriga v. Blonder Builders Inc., No. 17-CV-497, 2018 WL 4861394, at *2 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018) (same). The standard of review is highly deferential; thus, I must decide whether Judge Locke's decision is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient at this stage to establish a factual nexus between the respective situations of Plaintiffs and the other roofing, siding, and concrete laborers “such that they are similarly situated ‘victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law, '” as alleged in this motion. Chui, 2020 WL 3618892, at *7 (quoting Neris v. R.J.D. Constr., Inc., No. 18-CV-1701 (ADS) (AKT), 2019 WL 1458239, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)). Contrary to Defendants' contention, this is not a situation in which “there is a total dearth of factual support for [Plaintiffs'] allegations of widespread wrongdoing . . . .”
Based on the above, the Court finds that on the whole, Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient at this stage to establish a factual nexus between the respective situations of the driver Plaintiffs and the other van drivers, “such that they are similarly situated ‘victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law, '” as alleged in this motion. Chui, 2020 WL 3618892, at *7 (quoting Neris v. R.J.D. Constr., Inc., No. 18-CV-1701 (ADS) (AKT), 2019 WL 1458239, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)). Contrary to Defendants' contention (see Defs.' Mem., ECF No. 44, at 4
The Court finds that these additional allegations sufficiently establish a factual nexus between the respective situations of Plaintiff, the other drivers, and Mr. Qi, “such that they are similarly situated ‘victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law, '” as alleged in this motion. Chui, 2020 WL 3618892, at *7 (quoting Neris v. R.J.D. Constr., Inc., No. 18-CV-1701 (ADS) (AKT), 2019 WL 1458239, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)). To the extent that Defendants argue Plaintiff is differently situated than the other drivers in terms of the range of hours worked and the slightly varied rate of pay (see Defs.' Mem., ECF No. 61, at 6-7), the Court notes that this “does not necessarily preclude a finding that he and other employees were similarly situated with respect to their compensation of overtime wages.