Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 21, 2020

Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp.

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:20-cv-02481
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentFlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp., Judge Schofield canceled a conference and set steps for possible collective certification in a labor case.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, the proposed collective, and the defendants are affected by the canceled conference, meet-and-confer directive, filing deadlines, and possible later conditional-certification hearing.

What happened

Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp. is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of a proposed group of workers. The court found no significant issues requiring the scheduled initial pretrial conference.

The court canceled the July 23, 2020, conference and directed the parties to discuss whether they could agree on conditional certification and the form of notice. It set deadlines for a possible certification motion, opposition, and reply, and scheduled an October 1, 2020, conference for an oral ruling if the motion was filed.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order. The order did not decide whether the proposed group would ultimately be certified; it only directed discussions and set procedures for a possible conditional-certification motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-02481
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
July 21, 2020

Background

Plaintiffs brought this Fair Labor Standards Act action on behalf of themselves and a proposed collective of similarly situated workers. An initial pretrial conference was scheduled for July 23, 2020. The parties’ joint letter and proposed case-management plan did not raise significant issues.

Court’s actions

The court canceled the July 23 initial pretrial conference. It stated that the parties could promptly ask to reinstate the conference if they believed one would be useful. The court also said that the case-management plan and scheduling order would be issued separately and directed the parties’ attention to periodic status letters and the requirement for a pre-motion letter concerning later proceedings.

The court directed the parties to meet and discuss whether they could stipulate to conditional certification and the form of notice. Conditional certification is the preliminary step of allowing a Fair Labor Standards Act case to proceed collectively while notice is sent to potentially similar workers. The court noted that this preliminary step uses a lenient standard and expressly reserved the defendants’ rights to object to final certification under the more demanding standard that applies later.

Deadlines and next conference

The court ordered plaintiffs to file any conditional-certification motion by August 21, 2020. Defendants’ opposition would be due September 4, 2020, and plaintiffs’ reply would be due September 11, 2020. The court scheduled an October 1, 2020, conference at 10:50 a.m. for an oral ruling if plaintiffs filed the motion.

Disposition

The order canceled the initial pretrial conference and set procedures for a possible conditional-certification motion. It did not grant or deny conditional certification and did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.

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.