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)

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