• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
390 results

Piney et al v. City Of New York et al

Docket 1:25-cv-00671, New York Southern District Court (Jan. 23, 2025)
Judge Dale E. Ho, presiding, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave
Labor - Fair Labor Standards Act
DivisionFoley Square
FlagsCASREF, ECF
Cause29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Case Type710 Labor - Fair Labor Standards Act
Tags710 Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act, 710 Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act
DeadlineNBCUniversal Media, LLC served on 3/4/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., To streamline Defendants' responses to the SAC, the Court also EXTENDS the deadline to answer, move against, or otherwise respond to the SAC to Tuesday, April 1, 2025., Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. served on 3/3/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Century 21 USA, LLC served on 3/5/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., UBS Financial Services, Inc. served on 3/5/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., answer due 4/1/2025., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. served on 3/4/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., JPMorgan Chase & Co. served on 3/4/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Montefiore Medical Center served on 3/5/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., April 1, 2025, MSG Entertainment Holdings, LLC served on 2/21/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., 1 On February 21, 2025, the Court took similar action by setting an extended deadline—to April 1, 2025— to answer or oppose Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint., Tishman Speyer Associates Limited Partnership waiver sent on 1/31/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Empire Force Incorporated served on 3/10/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Aldi, Inc. served on 3/4/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Bryant Park Corporation served on 3/4/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Chelsea Piers L.P. served on 3/4/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., ) On February 27, 2025, observing that service of process was ongoing in this action, the Court issued an Order setting blanket deadlines of (1) April 1, 2025 for all Defendants to answer, move against, or otherwise oppose the SAC and (2) May 16, 2025 for all Defendants to oppose the Collective Motion., The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation served on 3/4/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., ) In response, and in an effort to streamline this litigation, the Court issued another order maintaining Defendants’ April 1, 2025 deadline to answer and May 16, 2025 deadline to oppose the Collective Motion., SL Green Realty Corp. served on 3/5/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., MIR Hanson Associates, LLC served on 3/5/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Primark US Corp. served on 3/4/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Wakefern Food Corp., d/b/a ShopRite Supermarkets, Inc. served on 3/4/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time for Defendant The TJX Companies, Inc. to answer, move against, or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint.through April 1, 2025 addressed to Judge Dale E. Ho from Kevin K. Yam dated February 14, 2025., Buena Vista Theatrical Group Ltd. d/b/a Disney Theatrical Group served on 2/21/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., 34th Street Partnership, Inc. served on 2/21/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Disney Entertainment LLC served on 3/5/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Best Buy Co. Inc. served on 3/4/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Bnos Bais Yaakov High School of Lakewood served on 3/5/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., FedEx Corporation served on 3/3/2025, answer due 4/1/2025., Sam Ash Music Corporation served on 3/5/2025, answer due 4/1/2025.
DeadlineThe New York Botanical Garden served on 3/13/2025, answer due 4/3/2025., Taino Towers Apartments LLC served on 3/13/2025, answer due 4/3/2025., CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification to April 3, 2025 addressed to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave from John Guyette dated February 27, 2025., Manhattan Beer Distributors LLC served on 3/13/2025, answer due 4/3/2025., CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition/Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification (Dkts. 54-78) Through April 3, 2025 addressed to Judge Dale E. Ho from Kevin K. Yam dated February 26, 2025., Bloomingdales LLC served on 3/13/2025, answer due 4/3/2025., SBH Health System served on 3/13/2025, answer due 4/3/2025.
Plaintiff Albert Piney
Plaintiff Roman Diaz
Plaintiff Jose Martinez
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 246 ORDER granting 242 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint

Document Piney et al v. City Of New York et al, 1:25-cv-00671, No. 246 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2025)
Motion to Extend TimeGranted
Dear Judge Cave, Our firm is counsel to Defendants Bryant Park Corporation and 34th Street Partnership, Inc. in the above-referenced matter.
We have entered an appearance today on their behaves, and we write to respectfully request that Your Honor grant us leave to join in the letter motion filed on March 17, 2025 by a group of 33 Defendants (Piney ECF 218), which seeks certain modifications to Your Honor's March 14, 2025 Orders (the "Orders") (Piney ECF 196).
As explained in the March 17 Letter Motion, the proposed modifications would further Rule 1's mandate "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of [this] action" by allowing for coordinated briefing and responses after the Court decides on Plaintiffs' pending motions for consolidation and appointment of interim class counsel.
We agree with the arguments and suggestions made by the movants and believe that they would benefit all Parties 4930-2090-1675.1 and the Court by avoiding duplication, confusion, and inefficiency.
Respectfully, fairness suggests that Defendants should not be required to answer or move with respect to a pleading prior to the Court’s decision on whether to consolidate the case with other cases having separate pleadings, in some instances against the identical Defendants.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 259 ORDER denying without prejudice 204 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting ...

Document Piney et al v. City Of New York et al, 1:25-cv-00671, No. 259 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2025)
Law §§ 1 et seq., by failing to (1) adequately or timely compensate them, or (2) provide notices of pay rate or accurate wage statements.
The Consolidation Motion asks the Court to combine this action with two other nearly identical cases filed by different counsel—Monasar, et al. v. City of New York, et al., No. 25 Civ.
Plaintiffs’ Letter-Motion requests that the Court require all Defendants to “coordinate with one another and submit a single comprehensive memorandum of law” in support of any anticipated motion to dismiss.
The Letter-Motions at ECF Nos. 252 and 254 are GRANTED, and Defendants Brooklyn Hospital Center and Buena Vista Theatrical Group are deemed to have joined in Defendants’ Letter-Motion.
c. By Friday, May 16, 2025, any Defendants opposing the Consolidation Motion shall confer and file a single joint brief of no longer than 20 pages (or of equivalent word count).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 296 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 291 Motion for Paul DeCamp to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Document Piney et al v. City Of New York et al, 1:25-cv-00671, No. 296 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025)
Motion to Appear Pro Hac ViceGranted
ALBERT PINEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - against - CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.
The motion of Paul DeCamp, for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above-captioned action is granted.
Applicant has declared that he is a member in good standing of the bars of Commonwealth of Virginia, District of Columbia, and the State of California; and that his contact information is as follows: Applicant’s Name: Paul DeCamp Firm Name: Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 291.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 196 ORDER granting 193 Motion for Lisa A. Scherer to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 194 Motion ...

Document Piney et al v. City Of New York et al, 1:25-cv-00671, No. 196 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2025)
Motion to Appear Pro Hac ViceGranted
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 145 ORDER, Defendants shall file any oppositions or responses to the Consolidation Motion by Friday, ...

Document Piney et al v. City Of New York et al, 1:25-cv-00671, No. 145 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2025)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 127 ORDER granting 114 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File ; granting 116 Letter Motion ...

Document Piney et al v. City Of New York et al, 1:25-cv-00671, No. 127 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2025)
SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are two Letter-Motions (the “Letter-Motions”)—one filed by Defendant TJX Companies, Inc. (“TJX”) (ECF No. 114) and a second by Defendant Target Corporation (“Target”) (ECF No. 116)—seeking an extension of time to oppose Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Conditional Collective Certification (the “Collective Motion”).
As TJX and Target note, by operation of Local Civil Rule 6.1(b), the deadline to oppose the Collective Motion is currently Wednesday, March 4, 2025.
Observing that service of process is ongoing and that as of today, February 27, 2025, dozens of the approximately 90 defendants named in this action still have not yet appeared, the Court concludes that a blanket extension of the deadline to oppose the Collective Motion is warranted.1 Accordingly, the Letter-Motions are GRANTED, and the deadline for ALL DEFENDANTS to oppose the Collective Motion is EXTENDED to Friday, May 16, 2025.
1 On February 21, 2025, the Court took similar action by setting an extended deadline—to April 1, 2025— to answer or oppose Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 87 ORDER granting 32 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document; granting 37 Letter Motion for ...

Document Piney et al v. City Of New York et al, 1:25-cv-00671, No. 87 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2025)
Motion to File DocumentGranted
On January 23, 2025, five plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging that the New York Police Department (“NYPD”) and private businesses on whose behalf it contracted to provide security services violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), N.Y.
Law §§ 1 et seq., by failing to (1) adequately or timely compensate them, or (2) provide notices of pay rate or accurate wage statements.
On February 13, 2025, Plaintiffs—by that point a group of 16 as a result of opt-ins—filed an Amended Complaint as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A).
Although not raised in the Letter-Motion, a motion to amend that seeks to add new parties also implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, which provides that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” See Garcia v. Pancho Villa’s of Huntington Vill., Inc., 268 F.R.D.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Letter-Motion and directs Plaintiffs to file the SAC by Monday, February 24, 2025.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>