Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:20-cv-02481
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp., Judge Schofield ordered defendants to respond to plaintiffs’ conditional-certification motion, warning the collective could otherwise be certified.
The defendants were required to respond to the plaintiffs’ conditional-certification motion by September 11, 2020. The plaintiffs and potential members of the proposed collective were affected because the court warned that the collective may be conditionally certified if defendants did not respond.
What happened
In Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp., plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a group of similarly situated people on August 21, 2020. Defendants had not opposed the motion.
The court ordered defendants to file an opposition or confirm whether they agreed to conditional certification and the proposed notice by September 11, 2020. The court did not grant certification in this order.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield warned that the collective could be conditionally certified if defendants filed neither an opposition nor a letter. She also explained that defendants could preserve their objections to final certification by agreeing to conditional certification at this preliminary stage.
The detailed version
- Molina v. Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-02481
- Robert Lehrburger
- Sept. 8, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification on August 21, 2020. Conditional certification is an initial, preliminary step for allowing similarly situated people to receive notice of a case and potentially join a collective. The court’s earlier order had directed defendants to file any opposition by September 4, 2020. Defendants did not file an opposition.
Order
The court ordered defendants to do one of two things by September 11, 2020: file an opposition to the motion, or submit a letter stating whether they stipulated, or agreed, to conditional certification and the form of notice. The court warned that the collective may be conditionally certified if defendants filed neither an opposition nor a letter.
The court described the standard for conditional certification as lenient and stated that the plaintiffs’ burden at this stage is minimal because the determination of whether people are similarly situated is preliminary. The court also stated that defendants could stipulate to conditional certification and the notice while reserving their rights to object to final certification under the more demanding standard used at that later stage. The order did not itself grant or deny the motion for conditional certification.
Result
The court issued a deadline and warning concerning the pending motion; it did not make a final certification ruling in this order. The order is signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.