Munoz v. The Group US Management LLC
- Ricardo
- 1:22-cv-04038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Munoz v. The Group US Management LLC, Judge Ricardo denied reconsideration of the notice period and approved a revised notice for tipped employees.
The ruling affects the defendants, the plaintiffs, and current and former front-of-house tipped employees who worked at La Grande Boucherie or Petite Boucherie on or after May 17, 2019, because it determines how notice about joining the case will be sent and posted.
What happened
In Munoz v. The Group US Management LLC, the defendants asked the court to reconsider the deadline used to identify tipped employees who could receive notice about joining the case. The plaintiffs also submitted a revised notice for the court’s approval.
The court denied the reconsideration request, finding that the notice period was not the result of a clerical mistake or oversight. The court approved the revised notice and directed that it be sent in English and Spanish to current and former front-of-house tipped employees who worked at the two identified locations on or after May 17, 2019.
Judge Henry J. Ricardo also ordered limits on repeated contact during the 60-day period for employees to join the case. Plaintiffs’ counsel may contact an individual no more than twice through any one communication method, and the defendants must post the notice at the identified locations.
The detailed version
- Munoz v. The Group US Management LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04038
- Ricardo
- Feb. 11, 2025
Background
The court had previously granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ request for conditional collective certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal wage-and-hour law. That earlier order required the defendants to provide information about tipped employees who worked at La Grande Boucherie and Petite Boucherie, referred to together as the “Primary Locations,” on or after May 17, 2019.
The defendants moved for reconsideration of the notice period for those employees. They argued that using a date three years before the filing of the action resulted from an oversight that should be corrected. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. The plaintiffs also submitted a revised notice for potential participants to review and use if they wished to join the case. The defendants did not object to the revised notice.
Motion for reconsideration
The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or the need to prevent serious injustice. The court also considered the federal rule allowing correction of clerical mistakes or mistakes caused by oversight or omission.
The court concluded that the notice period was reasonably defined and was not a mistake caused by oversight or omission. The court noted that the Fair Labor Standards Act allows a three-year limitations period for willful violations, but that the limitations period continues to run for each potential participant until that person files a written consent to join the case. The court had previously declined to apply blanket equitable tolling, meaning a general extension of the limitations period, while leaving open individualized requests based on particular circumstances.
The court therefore denied the defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 109.
Revised notice
The court approved the Revised Notice in the form submitted at ECF No. 114-1. Plaintiffs must promptly finalize and transmit it in English and Spanish to all current and former front-of-house tipped employees who worked at the Primary Locations on or after May 17, 2019. The notice may be sent by mail, email, and/or text message.
During the 60-day period for potential participants to join the case, counsel may not contact any individual more than twice through any one communication method. Plaintiffs must tell the court by letter when the revised notice was first transmitted and what opt-in deadline—60 days later—the notice specifies.
The defendants must promptly post the revised notice in English and Spanish in a location readily accessible during regular business hours to front-of-house tipped employees at the Primary Locations. They must also tell the court by letter when the notice was first posted.
Disposition
The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 109 as denied. The Revised Notice was approved. This order addressed reconsideration and notice procedures; it did not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.