Saleem et al v. Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd. et al
Filing
542
OPINION AND ORDER re: 536 MOTION to Alter Judgment re: 535 Clerk's Judgment, filed by Jagjit Singh, Mazhar Saleem: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED and the Court's judgment of September 24, 2014 (Docket No. 535), is amended to clarify that it does not apply to the NYLL claims (if any) of Opt-In Plaintiffs that is, to the NYLL claims of anyone other than the named Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 536. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/8/2014) (tn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
MAZHAR SALEEM et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
CORPORATE TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LTD. et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
12/09/2014
12-CV-8450 (JMF)
OPINION AND ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
Upon due consideration of the parties’ submissions, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend
the Judgment (Docket No. 536) is granted substantially for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’
memoranda of law. (Docket Nos. 537 and 541). Put simply, in the Opinion and Order granting
summary judgment to Defendants (Docket No. 532), the Court elided — and thus, overlooked —
the distinction between the claims under Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et
seq., and the claims under the New York State Labor Law (“NYLL”), N.Y. Lab. Law § 650 et
seq., for purposes of the Opt-In Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Shader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,
257 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that a motion for reconsideration should be “denied unless the
moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — matters, in
other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court”).
Given the plain language of the Opt-In Plaintiffs’ consent-to-join forms (Docket Nos. 2
(“I consent to be a party plaintiff in a lawsuit . . . in order to seek redress from violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)” (emphasis added)) and 434
(“CONSENT TO JOIN LAWSUIT FILED UNDER THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT” (emphasis added))), there is no basis to conclude that the Opt-In Plaintiffs
joined the named Plaintiffs in bringing claims under the NYLL. See, e.g., Albritton v. Cagle’s,
Inc., 508 F.3d 1012, 1018-19 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that consent forms must be interpreted
“according to their plain terms” and that court should not “rewrite those forms to broaden their
scope”); cf. Hicks v. T.L. Cannon Corp., — F. Supp. 2d —, No. 13-CV-6455, 2014 WL
3860483, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2014) (holding that plaintiffs who had opted in to a FLSA
collective action “may [also] seek redress” for violations of the NYLL on the ground that the
“broad language” in the relevant consent forms “would seem to encompass the state law claims
brought in this lawsuit”), reconsideration denied by 2014 WL 5088879 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2014).
And given that the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class for purposes of the NYLL,
the Court had no basis to rule on the NYLL claims of anyone other than the named Plaintiffs.
See, e.g., Mendez v. The Radec Corp., 260 F.R.D. 38, 48 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (“[A]n individual’s
claims will not be barred by a judgment in favor of the defendant in an action brought under Rule
23, if no class was ever certified (and hence no notices ever sent) prior to the entry of the
judgment.”). That is, having successfully defeated Plaintiffs’ certification motion, Defendants
cannot now argue that their victory on the merits under the NYLL has preclusive effects beyond
the named Plaintiffs.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED and the Court’s judgment of
September 24, 2014 (Docket No. 535), is amended to clarify that it does not apply to the NYLL
claims (if any) of Opt-In Plaintiffs — that is, to the NYLL claims of anyone other than the
named Plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 536.
SO ORDERED.
Date: December 8, 2014
New York, New York
2
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?