Kwan v. Sahara Dreams Co. II Inc. et al

Filing 127

ORDER, Having reviewed the parties' joint submission (id.), and having heard the parties' arguments during the telephone conference held today, October 6, 2021, the Court orders as follows: Plaintiff's request for an order directi ng Defendants to post the Notice at the Hotel is DENIED. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that other means of notifying the Potential Plaintiffs, including by mail or email, have been ineffective, or that posting the Notice at the Hotel would likel y be an effective means of notifying the Potential Plaintiffs. See Islam v. LX Ave. Bagels, Inc., No. 18 Civ. 4895 (RA) (RWL), 2019 WL 5198667, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) (denying request to post notice in employee common areas because the & quot;Plaintiffs have not provided any basis to conclude that there will be any problem reaching current employees though mail or email."); Park v. FDM Grp. Inc., No. 16 Civ. 1520 (LTS) (SN), 2019 WL 2205715, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019) (den ying request to post notice at the defendant's offices because "posting the notice [was] unlikely to be effective."); Plaintiff's request to distribute the Notice to the Potential Plaintiffs by text message is GRANTED IN PART a nd DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a text-message notice in the first instance is appropriate. See Pettenato v. Beacon Health Options, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 3d 264, 285 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). If, however, Plaintiff's attempts to no tify the Potential Plaintiffs by mail and email prove ineffective, then Plaintiff may send a follow-up reminder to the Potential Plaintiffs by text message. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the content of any such text-message reminder. If the parties are unable to agree, they may submit a joint letter to the Court setting forth, without argument, the parties competing versions of the proposed text-message reminder; All discovery shall be completed by February 28, 202 2; By March 7, 2022, the parties shall file a joint letter certifying the completion of discovery; and A Telephone Conference is scheduled for Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:00 am on the Court's conference line. The parties are directed to call: [phone]; access code: 380-9799, at the scheduled time. SO ORDERED. ( Discovery due by 2/28/2022., Telephone Conference set for 2/10/2022 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave on 10/6/21) (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHUI-FAN KWAN, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 17 Civ. 4058 (RA) (SLC)

-vSAHARA DREAMS CO. II INC., SAHARA DREAMS LLC,
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS & RESORTS, LLC, and DREAM
HOTEL GROUP, LLC,

ORDER

Defendants.
SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Chui-Fan Kwan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, brings this
action alleging that defendants Sahara Dreams Co. II Inc., Sahara Dreams LLC, Hampshire Hotels
& Resorts, LLC, and Dream Hotel Group, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) engaged in several forms
of time-shaving practices and misclassified floor managers like herself as exempt employees in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). On July 7, 2021, the Honorable Ronnie Abrams
conditionally certified a collective of potential plaintiffs (the “Potential Plaintiffs”) who were
employed as floor managers at the Dream Downtown Hotel (the “Hotel”) for three years
preceding the filing of this action. (ECF Nos. 120, 122).
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for an order: i) directing Defendants to post the
Notice of Pendency and Consent to Sue Form (the “Notice”) at the Hotel; and ii) permitting
Plaintiff to distribute the Notice to the Potential Plaintiffs by text message. (ECF No. 124). Having
reviewed the parties’ joint submission (id.), and having heard the parties’ arguments during the
telephone conference held today, October 6, 2021, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an order directing Defendants to post the Notice at the Hotel is
DENIED. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that other means of notifying the Potential
Plaintiffs, including by mail or email, have been ineffective, or that posting the Notice
at the Hotel would likely be an effective means of notifying the Potential Plaintiffs.
See Islam v. LX Ave. Bagels, Inc., No. 18 Civ. 4895 (RA) (RWL), 2019 WL 5198667, at
*11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) (denying request to post notice in employee common
areas because the “Plaintiffs have not provided any basis to conclude that there will
be any problem reaching current employees though mail or email.”); Park v. FDM Grp.
Inc., No. 16 Civ. 1520 (LTS) (SN), 2019 WL 2205715, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019)
(denying request to post notice at the defendant’s offices because “posting the notice
[was] unlikely to be effective.”);
2. Plaintiff’s request to distribute the Notice to the Potential Plaintiffs by text message
is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a textmessage notice in the first instance is appropriate. See Pettenato v. Beacon Health
Options, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 3d 264, 285 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). If, however, Plaintiff’s
attempts to notify the Potential Plaintiffs by mail and email prove ineffective, then
Plaintiff may send a follow-up reminder to the Potential Plaintiffs by text message.
The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the content of any such textmessage reminder. If the parties are unable to agree, they may submit a joint letter
to the Court setting forth, without argument, the parties’ competing versions of the
proposed text-message reminder;
3. All discovery shall be completed by February 28, 2022;

2

4. By March 7, 2022, the parties shall file a joint letter certifying the completion of
discovery; and
5. A Telephone Conference is scheduled for Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:00 am
on the Court’s conference line. The parties are directed to call: [phone]; access
code: 380-9799, at the scheduled time.
Dated:

New York, New York
October 6, 2021
SO ORDERED.

_________________________
SARAH L. CAVE
United States Magistrate Judge

3