Sarikaputar et al v. Veratip Corp. et al

Filing 103

ORDER: NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED the Proposed Notice is approved in substantially the same form provided to the Court. SO ORDERED (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 6/4/2024) (ks)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 06/04/2024 Paranee Sarikaputar, et al., Plaintiffs, -against- 1:19-cv-11168 (ALC) (SDA) ORDER Veratip Corp., et al., Defendants. STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: WHEREAS, the parties were required to “submit a proposed notice to be sent to members of the putative collective for the Court's review and approval[,]” (5/3/24 Memo Endorsement, ECF No. 95); 1 and WHEREAS, the Court reviewed the “Proposed Court Authorized Notice of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Collective Action” filed at ECF No. 100-1 (the “Proposed Notice”), which the parties stipulated to but-for a “sole issue” related to inclusion of the names of all Defendants in the Proposed Notice (Pl.’s 5/24/24 Ltr., ECF No. 100); and WHEREAS, the Court issued an Order to permit the names of all Defendants on the Proposed Notice (5/30/24 Order, ECF No. 102). NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED the Proposed Notice is approved in substantially the same form provided to the Court. 2 “Under the FLSA, the content of the notice is left to the court's discretion.” Delaney v. Geisha N.Y.C., LLC, 261 F.R.D. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); accord Lopez v. JVA Indus., Inc., No. 14-CV-09988 (KPF), 2015 WL 5052575, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2015) (noting that the FLSA “vests the district court with broad discretion” with respect to the notice of pending litigation to be provided to potential opt-in plaintiffs). 1 See Manfredo v. VIP Auto Grp. Of Long Island, Inc., No. 20-CV-03728 (MKB) (AYS), 2021 WL 4958907, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2021) (granting motion for certifying a conditional collective and a proposed notice, 2 SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York June 4, 2024 ______________________________ STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge with a few modifications, where the parties stipulated to the proposed notice); Chowdhury v. Duane Reade, Inc., No. 06-CV-02295 (GEL), 2007 WL 2873929, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2007) (“The Court expects the parties to work out those issues on their own, and provide the Court with the stipulated notice.”); Spencer v. No Parking Today, Inc., No. 12-CV-06323 (ALC) (AJP), 2013 WL 1040052, at *28 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2013) (directing that a joint proposed notice be submitted to the court for review)) 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?