Colella v. New York City Transit Authority et al

Filing 140

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 128 MOTION to Dismiss Non-Compliant Opt-In Plaintiffs filed by Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, New York City Transit Authority. For the reasons stated, we recommend that defendants' motion to dismiss be granted. Objections to R&R due by 4/2/2015 (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 3/16/2015) Notice of this foregoing Report & Recommendation has been provided to counsel through ECF.(ama)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------x NICOLA COLELLA, on behalf of himself and classes of those similarly situated, et al., REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 12 Plaintiffs, CV. 6041 (GBD) (MHD) -againstNEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY and MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, Defendants. ---------------------------------x TO THE HONORABLE GEORGE B. DANIELS, U.S.D.J.: Defendants in this collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standard Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et~, have moved to dismiss with prejudice two more opt-in plaintiffs for non-participation. (See docket nos. 128-33, 135-36). They initially targeted Messrs. Robert Watkis and Michael Outlar (see Defts' Memo at 1), but have since withdrawn their motion with respect to Mr. Watkis, who failed to appear for his originally scheduled deposition but belatedly appeared for a rescheduled deposition on February 11, 2015. Reply Memo at 1. See Schragin Deel. ~ (Defts' 8). We recommend that the motion be granted with respect to Mr. Outlar. The background to this lawsuit and its course, as well as the 1 pertinent legal criteria, were described in sufficient detail in our December 2, 2014 Report and Recommendation ("Dec. 2, 2014 R&R" [docket no. 114]) , which addressed a similar dismissal motion targeting a number of other opt-ins, and the details will not be repeated here. It suffices to note Outlar to appear failed for his scheduled for January 22, 2015. that, like Mr. deposition, (Shragin Deel. ~ Watkis, which had Mr. been 5) . He contacted his attorney on January 27, 2015 and indicated that he was still interested offered in pursuing no deposition. indication (Id. at ~ this of case, when he but, unlike would be Mr. Watkis, available for he a 6) . At a telephone conference conducted with the court on March 13, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel reported that they had not heard since from Mr. objection to the dismissal Outlar and were withdrawing their motion insofar as it targeted Mr. Outlar. Since this opt-in plaintiff has apparently ceased all cooperation with his counsel and has apparently deliberately failed to appear for a deposition, we conclude that dismissal of him is appropriate (See Dec. 2, 2014 R&R at 12-14). 2 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, we recommend that defendants' motion to dismiss be granted. Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen written objections to this (14) Report days from this date to file and Recommendation. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on all adversaries, with extra copies to be delivered to the chambers of the Honorable George B. Daniels, Room 1310, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007-1312, and to the undersigned, Room 1670, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007-1312. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of those objections, both in the District Court and on later appeal to the United States Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(e); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F.3d 84, 86 & (2d. Cir. 2000) (citing Small v. Sec'y. of Health Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)). Dated: New York, New York March 16, 2015 MICHAEL H. DOLINGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 Notice of this foregoing Report & Recommendation has been provided to counsel through ECF. 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?