Portilla v. Bridgehampton Stone, Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Cape Fear Pub. Util. Auth. v. The Chemours Co. FC

    21 Civ. 10702 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. May. 7, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    By May 21, 2024, Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs a computer-readable list of all names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses for all potential opt-in plaintiffs, along with their primary language(s) spoken and their approximate dates of employment. See Portilla v. Bridgehampton Stone, Inc., No. 17 Civ. 2549, 2019 WL 1128364, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2019). Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to send notices and reminder notices to potential plaintiffs, in any identified primary language of the potential class members, via mail and text messages within sixty days of the date of this order. The notices and reminders shall include the contact information for Defendants' counsel. Escano v. N & A Produce & Grocery Corp., No. 14 Civ. 4239, 2015 WL 1069384, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2015)

  2. King v. FEDCAP Rehab. Servs.

    20-CV-1784 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2022)   Cited 8 times

    However, courts do “routinely approve” requests that defendants produce an electronic list including names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of employment, locations of employment, and email addresses of potential plaintiffs “once conditional certification has been granted.” Costello v. Kohl's Ill., Inc., No. 1:13-CV-1359-GHW, 2014 WL 4377931, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2014). “[Practical requests with respect to disseminating notice and reminders, such as dissemination via email and text messages, further the purpose of notice of a collective action under the FLSA.” Portilla v. Bridgehampton Stone, Inc., CV 17-2549 (JMA)(AYS), 2019 WL 1128364, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2019).

  3. Infantino v. Sealand Contractors Corp.

    565 F. Supp. 3d 347 (W.D.N.Y. 2021)

    Moreover, its use has been approved by many courts in FLSA actions involving construction work. See , e.g. , Sanchez v. Art+1, Inc. , 2021 WL 871416, *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (conditionally certifying collective class composed of "all current and former construction laborers employed by [d]efendants"); Portilla v. Bridgehampton Stone, Inc. , 2019 WL 1128364, *2 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (conditionally certifying collective class consisting of "current and former employees of [d]efendants who, as of July 26, 2016, performed any work for [d]efendants as non-managerial construction laborers"); Dieffenbauch v. Rhinehart R.R. Constr., Inc. , 2018 WL 4150883, *6 (N.D.N.Y. 2018) (in railroad construction and maintenance context, conditionally certifying collective composed of "[a]ll persons employed by [defendant] as ‘Railroad Workers’ (‘Operators/Laborers’)"); Valerio v. RNC Indus., LLC , 314 F.R.D. 61, 73 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (conditionally certifying collective composed of "[a]ll current and former laborers (carpenters, welders, mechanics, etc.) employed by [defendants]"); Morris v. Lettire Constr., Corp. , 896 F. Supp. 2d 265, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (conditionally certifying collective consisting of "all foremen and laborers who worked for defendants"). As for defendants’ second objection – the provision permitting consents to be returned to plaintiffs’ counsel – ample law supp

  4. Infantino v. Sealand Contractors Corp.

    No. 20-CV-6782W (W.D.N.Y. May. 11, 2021)

    Moreover, its use has been approved by many courts in FLSA actions involving construction work. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Art+1, Inc., 2021 WL 871416, *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (conditionally certifying collective class composed of “all current and former construction laborers employed by [d]efendants”); Portilla v. Bridgehampton Stone, Inc., 2019 WL 1128364, *2 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (conditionally certifying collective class consisting of “current and former employees of [d]efendants who, as of July 26, 2016, performed any work for [d]efendants as non-managerial construction laborers”)

  5. Navar v. Walsh Constr. Co.

    18 Civ. 10476 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. May. 28, 2020)

    There is no credible reason why notice should not be provided by email or text message, especially given the broad remedial purpose of the FLSA.Millin v. Brooklyn Born Chocolate, LLC, No. 19 Civ. 3346, 2020 WL 2198125, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2020); see also Portilla v. Bridgehampton Stone, Inc., No. Civ. 172549, 2019 WL 1128364, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2019) ("Practical requests with respect to disseminating notice and reminders, such as dissemination via email and text messages, further the purpose of notice of a collective action under the FLSA."). In any event, Defendants also do not dispute that there exists a turnover rate of just short of forty percent among potential members of the collective and this, in combination with the uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic which have led some to leave New York City, "sufficiently demonstrate[s] that turnover and relocation by potential members of the collective [may] render mailed notice ineffective."

  6. Ying Yang v. Vill. Super Mkt., Inc.

    18-cv-10486 (WHW)(CLW) (D.N.J. May. 14, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    A party is not entitled to a second bite at the apple"). Importantly, the Court found that when reviewing the record evidence, Plaintiff's duty to demonstrate a modest factual showing had been recently described as a "very low burden," Portilla v. Bridgehampton Stone, Inc., No. CV172549, 2019 WL 1128364, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2019), and that "[t]his lenient standard is typically easily met and usually results in conditional certification," Taylor v. Pilot Corp., No. 14-CV-2294-SHL-TMP, 2015 WL 12001270, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. June 16, 2015). See also Woodard v. FedEx Freight E., Inc., 250 F.R.D. 178, 191 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA class at step one "usually results in conditional certification"); Steinberg v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 10-CV-5600 RMB-JS, 2012 WL 2500331, at *9 (D.N.J. June 27, 2012) (describing a modest factual showing as an "extremely lenient standard").

  7. Mason v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.

    17-CV-4780 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y. May. 13, 2019)   Cited 25 times
    Finding that defendant had forfeited a jurisdictional defense but adopting Swamy approach

    See, e.g., Agonath, 2019 WL 1060627, at *7; Castillo v. Perfume Worldwide Inc., No. CV 17-2972 (JS)(AKT), 2018 WL 1581975, at *17 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2018); Lopez, 2018 WL 582466, at *2. Defendant therefore shall post copies of the Notice, in all relevant languages, see Portilla v. Bridgehampton Stone, Inc., CV 17-2549 (JMA)(AYS), 2019 WL 1128364, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2019), in non-public locations conspicuous to all relevant employees, for the duration of the opt-in period. Courts in this Circuit also regularly authorize notice by email.