Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 8, 2024

Kovalev v. A.G. Consulting Engineering, P.C.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-05954
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentFlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kovalev v. A.G. Consulting Engineering, Judge Vyskocil conditionally certified an FLSA collective action and approved notice to potential opt-in workers.

Who this affects

Current and former field employees of A.G. Consulting Engineering, P.C. who meet the stated employment, pay, hours, overtime, and opt-in criteria may receive notice and join the conditionally certified collective action.

What happened

In Kovalev v. A.G. Consulting Engineering, P.C., Ivan Kovalev and Mintiwab Hill asked the court to conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The motion was unopposed.

The plaintiffs submitted declarations, a proposed notice, an opt-in form, and other materials. The court found that they had made the required modest factual showing that other workers might be similarly situated regarding alleged overtime violations.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted conditional certification, approved the proposed notice, and ordered the defendant to provide contact information for qualifying workers within 14 days. The court also authorized notice by mail and email and permitted a reminder notice before the opt-in period closed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kovalev v. A.G. Consulting Engineering, P.C. · No. 1:22-cv-05954
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
July 8, 2024

Background

Ivan Kovalev and Mintiwab Hill brought Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. They filed an unopposed motion under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) seeking conditional certification of an FLSA collective action.

Court’s analysis

For conditional certification, the court found that the plaintiffs had made a modest factual showing that potential opt-in plaintiffs might be similarly situated concerning whether an FLSA violation occurred. The order did not decide whether the defendant violated the FLSA or whether any worker is entitled to damages.

Ruling and procedures

The court conditionally certified a collective action consisting of current and former field employees who were employed between July 13, 2019, and the present; were paid hourly; worked more than 40 hours per week; were either not paid the required overtime rate or were required to perform unpaid pre-shift or post-shift work resulting in more than 40 hours per week; and opted into the action.

The court approved the plaintiffs’ proposed notice of the collective action. Within 14 days, the defendant was ordered to provide the plaintiffs with an Excel spreadsheet listing the names, last-known mailing and email addresses, and telephone numbers of individuals meeting the certification criteria. The court ordered that notice issue by mail and email and allowed the plaintiffs to send a reminder notice 45 days before the opt-in period closed. The clerk was requested to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 57.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.