Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 6, 2024

Silva v. Consolidated Scaffolding, Inc.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:24-cv-04591
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Silva v. Consolidated Scaffolding, Judge Schofield ordered responses and discussions before deciding conditional collective certification.

Who this affects

Wilber David Silva, Consolidated Scaffolding, Inc., the other defendants, and workers who might potentially join the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective.

What happened

Wilber David Silva brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case on behalf of a proposed group of workers. He told the court that he intended to seek conditional certification of that group.

The court ordered the defendants to respond to Silva’s letter by August 12, 2024. It also directed the parties to discuss whether they could agree to conditional certification and the notice sent to potential participants, while preserving the defendants’ right to challenge final certification later.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield said Silva’s proposed motion would be addressed at the initial pretrial conference on August 21, 2024. The order did not grant or deny conditional certification.

The detailed version

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

Case
Silva v. Consolidated Scaffolding, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04591
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Aug. 6, 2024

Background

Wilber David Silva brought this action on behalf of a proposed collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Silva filed a letter stating that he intended to move for conditional certification of the collective. Conditional certification is the preliminary step for notifying potentially eligible workers that they may join the case.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that the first-step standard for conditional certification is lenient. At that stage, plaintiffs need only make a modest factual showing that they and potential participants were affected by a common policy or plan that violated the law. The court also noted that a more demanding standard applies at the later final-certification stage.

Order

The court ordered the defendants to respond to Silva’s letter, as required by the court’s Individual Rules, by August 12, 2024. The parties were also directed to meet and confer before the initial pretrial conference about possibly agreeing to conditional certification and the form of notice. The order preserved the defendants’ rights to object to final certification under the more rigorous later-stage standard.

The court stated that Silva’s proposed motion for conditional certification would be addressed at the initial pretrial conference scheduled for August 21, 2024, at 4:20 p.m. The order did not grant or deny the proposed motion.

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.