Lara v. Broadway S/S Inc.

Background

The court had scheduled an initial pretrial conference for September 3, 2020. The parties submitted a joint letter and proposed case-management plan, and the court found that they had raised no significant issues. The plaintiff is Carlos Lara, individually and on behalf of others described as similarly situated. The defendants are Broadway S/S Inc. and Aftab Hussain, individually.

Orders

The court canceled the September 3 initial pretrial conference but allowed the parties to ask that it be reinstated if they believed a conference would be useful. The court stated that a case-management plan would issue separately and directed the parties’ attention to periodic status letters and to the requirement for a pre-motion letter to avoid cancellation of the final conference and the setting of a trial date.

The court ordered that, if the defendants sought to file a motion to dismiss, they had to submit a pre-motion letter under the judge’s individual rules. The court also directed the parties to file a joint letter requesting a referral if they became ready for settlement discussions with the assigned magistrate judge or through the court’s mediation program.

The court directed the parties to meet and confer about possibly stipulating to conditional certification and the form of notice. Conditional certification is an early-stage decision about whether a case may proceed with notice to potentially similarly situated people; the order stated that the defendants would retain their rights to object to final certification under the stricter standard applied later. The plaintiff’s conditional-certification motion was due September 25, 2020; the defendants’ opposition was due October 9, 2020; and the plaintiff’s reply was due October 16, 2020. The court scheduled a November 5, 2020, conference for an oral ruling if the plaintiff filed the motion, and waived the pre-motion-letter requirement for that motion.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the initial pretrial conference canceled and issued case-management and filing instructions. The order did not rule on a motion to dismiss or decide whether conditional certification should be granted. It also warned that fact-discovery deadlines would not be extended absent compelling circumstances.