Marquina v. Stout NYC Hospitality Group
Manuel Marquina a/k/a Luis Garcia, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. Stout NYC Hospitality Group, Inc. f/k/a Whelan Brothers Management Group, Inc., et al.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:25-cv-03867
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Marquina v. Stout NYC Hospitality Group, Judge Netburn denied reconsideration of a discovery order and set deadlines for conditional Fair Labor Standards Act collective certification.
The ruling directly affects Manuel Marquina and the defendants by denying reconsideration of the discovery ruling and setting the schedule for any motion to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective.
What happened
In Marquina v. Stout NYC Hospitality Group, Manuel Marquina asked the court to reconsider an earlier order denying his request for broad discovery about employees with different job titles at the defendants’ various restaurant locations. He brought the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and sought to pursue claims for a group of workers.
Marquina argued that the earlier discovery ruling was clearly mistaken. The court said he had not shown a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error. It also concluded that he had not provided enough facts linking his experience at one location and position to workers in other positions or locations to justify wide-ranging discovery before conditional certification of a collective action.
Judge Sarah Netburn denied the motion for reconsideration. She also directed Marquina to file any motion for conditional certification by January 16, 2026, with the defendants’ opposition due February 13 and his reply due February 27.
The detailed version
- Marquina v. Stout NYC Hospitality Group · No. 1:25-cv-03867
- Sarah Netburn
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
On November 3, 2025, the court denied Marquina’s motion to compel the defendants to produce a sample of class-wide discovery concerning employees with different job titles at the defendants’ various locations. Marquina then moved under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of that order.
Reconsideration Standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is granted sparingly. A party seeking reconsideration must show an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. A reconsideration motion cannot be used simply to relitigate an issue already decided.
Why Reconsideration Was Denied
Marquina ultimately argued that the court had clearly erred by citing the Fair Labor Standards Act’s two-step collective-action certification framework when the parties were disputing only the scope of discovery before certification. The court rejected that argument. It stated that district courts have broad discretion to manage discovery and that the earlier order properly recognized the limited factual showing generally required at the conditional-certification stage.
The court concluded that Marquina was seeking expansive discovery before providing facts about employment conditions at other locations or for other positions. It found that the pleadings and submitted evidence did not provide a sufficient factual basis connecting his experience to employees in other positions or at the defendants’ additional locations. The court also noted that Marquina had not identified anyone he believed was similarly situated and had not submitted cross-employee evidence comparable to evidence presented in cases he cited.
Conditional-Certification Schedule
The parties separately disagreed about when Marquina should move for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective. Marquina proposed filing within 60 days after depositions were completed. The defendants pointed to the case-management schedule, which set March 9, 2026, as the deadline to complete discovery and April 6, 2026, as the deadline to file any summary-judgment motion.
The court determined that waiting until after discovery could be inefficient because additional fact discovery might be needed if a collective were conditionally certified. Unless the court ordered otherwise, it directed Marquina to file the conditional-certification motion by January 16, 2026. The defendants’ opposition was due February 13, 2026, and Marquina’s reply was due February 27, 2026.
Disposition
Judge Sarah Netburn denied Marquina’s motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 24. The court also directed Marquina to file his motion for conditional certification by January 16, 2026.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.