Alves v. Affiliated Care of Putnam, Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:16-cv-01593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alves v. Affiliated, Judge Karas's order required plaintiffs to respond to defendants' challenge to seven late opt-in filings; the excerpt shows no ruling on the requested relief.
The parties and the seven prospective plaintiffs whose opt-in filings defendants challenged, as well as the approximately fifteen prospective plaintiffs described as having filed timely forms.
What happened
In Alves v. Affiliated Care of Putnam, Inc., defendants challenged seven prospective plaintiffs' filings as late under the court-approved notice and an earlier court order. They said the filing period had closed on May 5, 2020.
Plaintiffs responded that the 60-day period was not an absolute deadline, citing two Southern District of New York decisions and the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendants asked the court to reject the late filings, stop further filings, and limit any expected summary-judgment motion to timely opt-in plaintiffs.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas's order, as shown in the excerpt, required plaintiffs to respond by June 12, 2020. The excerpt does not show a ruling on whether the late filings would be accepted or rejected.
The detailed version
- Alves v. Affiliated Care of Putnam, Inc. · No. 7:16-cv-01593
- Kenneth Karas
- June 9, 2020
Background
Defense counsel sent the court a letter concerning prospective plaintiffs who sought to join the litigation. The letter states that the court-approved notice and an earlier court order established a 60-day period for submitting consent forms. According to defendants, the period began on March 3, 2020, and ended on May 5, 2020.
Defendants stated that plaintiffs had submitted about fifteen timely opt-in forms and then submitted seven additional forms after the deadline. The letter identifies filings through June 4, 2020, including one submitted thirty days after the stated closing of the period. Defendants also asserted that records available to both sides showed that most of the late prospective opt-in plaintiffs had little or no arguable overtime during the relevant period.
Parties' Positions
Defendants argued that the late submissions violated the court's earlier order and the approved notice, which stated that consent forms would be filed within 60 days. They asked the court to reject every late submission, direct plaintiffs to stop filing additional late submissions, and limit plaintiffs' anticipated summary-judgment motion to the timely opt-in plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs responded that the 60-day period was not an absolute deadline. They cited Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd. and Benavidez v. Piramides Mayas, Inc., and stated that the delay was not substantial and occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The opinion text contains defendants' characterization of those authorities but does not include a separate response from plaintiffs beyond the position quoted in the letter.
Court Action and Current Record
The document ends with “So Ordered” and states that plaintiffs were to respond to the letter by June 12, 2020. It does not state that the court granted or denied defendants' requested relief, does not resolve the status of the seven late filings, and does not rule on the anticipated summary-judgment motion. Judge Kenneth M. Karas is identified as the judge in the supplied materials.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.