Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-07804
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Judge Failla set a class-period end date, ordered a class list by May 9, and denied sanctions.
Defendants must produce a complete list of class and subclass members covered by the class period, ending February 7. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions was denied, subject to possible renewal if defendants fail to comply again.
What happened
In Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc., the court addressed a dispute about how long the certified class period lasted. Defendants had provided information for employees who worked from September 1, 2017, through September 2023, but plaintiffs requested updated information through the present.
Defendants asked the court to establish an end date, arguing that an open-ended period would create administrative burdens and confusion. Plaintiffs asked the court to require a complete list and to impose sanctions because defendants had not fully complied with earlier orders.
Judge Katherine Failla set the class-period end date as February 7, the date the court granted class certification. She ordered defendants to produce a complete class list by May 9, 2025, and denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, while allowing them to renew that request if defendants again failed to comply.
The detailed version
- Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07804
- Katherine Failla
- May 5, 2025
Background
The court had previously certified a class and subclass involving tipped food-service employees who worked for defendants. The class allegations covered employees employed beginning six years before the filing of the original complaint. The subclass concerned tipped employees at the Sushi Katsuei Park Slope location who participated in a tip-pooling system.
Defendants provided a list covering employees who worked during a period beginning September 1, 2017, and extending through September 2023. Plaintiffs sought additional information and documents concerning employees who were working, or had worked, through the present. Defendants asked the court to clarify the class period’s end date and proposed either six years from the complaint’s filing or the close of discovery.
The court stated that a clear end date would reduce confusion about who was included in the class. It also noted that plaintiffs’ amended complaint and class-certification motion were based on New York Labor Law claims, which have a six-year limitations period according to the authorities discussed in the opinion.
Court’s Ruling
The court set February 7—the date it granted class certification—as the end date for the class period. It required defendants to produce a complete class list by May 9, 2025.
The court expressed concern that defendants had not provided a complete list despite earlier orders. However, the court denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions and stated that plaintiffs could renew the request if defendants again failed to meet the deadline.
Disposition
The court clarified the class period, ordered production of the complete class list by May 9, 2025, and denied the request for sanctions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.