Cherif v. Sameday Delivery Corp. et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Having reviewed Judge Go's order, the defendants' objections, and the relevant case law, the Court finds no clear error or misapplication of law. I affirm Judge Go's ruling without qualification. Ordered by Judge Raymond J. Dearie on 5/24/2016. (Rodriguez, Lori)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------- x
BAKARY CHERIF and KADJALIOU
BARRY, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
- against -

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13 CV 1341 (RJD) (STL)

SAMEDAY DELIVERY CORP. and
BENEDITO EWARTON,
Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------- x
DEARIE, District Judge
Before the Court is an appeal from Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go's order granting
plaintiffs' motion (1) for leave to send notice of this opt-in collective action brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act; (2) to compel defendants to disclose the names, last known addresses,
work locations, dates of employment and telephone numbers of potential plaintiffs who were
employed by defendant Sameday Delivery Corp. as delivery drivers; and (3) for authorization to
post notice and consent forms at locations subject to the Court's approval.
The Court must "modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate's order found to be
clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A ruling is "clearly erroneous" if
the reviewing court has "the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
Kolesnikow v. Hudson Valley Hosp. Ctr., 622 F. Supp. 2d 98, 121 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). A ruling is
"contrary to law" if it "fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of
procedure." Collens v. City of New York, 222 F.R.D. 249, 251(S.D.N.Y.2004).
Defendants claim that Judge Go's order ignores and misinterprets relevant facts,
misconstrues the scope of defendants' clientele and operations, and misinterprets relevant case

law. Having reviewed Judge Go's order, the defendants' objections, and the relevant case law,
the Court finds no clear error or misapplication of law. I affirm Judge Go's ruling without
qualification.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
May 24, 2016

s/ RJD

2