Wu v. Eight Oranges, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-05786
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wu v. Eight Oranges, Judge Schofield scheduled briefing on Wu’s Fair Labor Standards Act collective-certification motion without deciding it.
Kuokwing Wu and the defendants, including Eight Oranges, Inc., because the order set deadlines and procedures for Wu’s anticipated conditional-certification motion.
What happened
In Wu v. Eight Oranges, Inc., Wu indicated that he planned to ask the court to conditionally certify a group action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties exchanged letters before a December 3, 2020, conference.
The court set deadlines for Wu’s motion, the defendants’ response, and Wu’s reply. The defendants could instead submit a joint agreement on conditional certification and the notice to potential participants, while preserving their objections to any later final certification.
Judge Schofield scheduled a January 28, 2021, telephone conference for an oral ruling and said there would be no argument. The order set the briefing schedule but did not decide whether conditional certification should be granted.
The detailed version
- Wu v. Eight Oranges, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-05786
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 3, 2020
Background
Plaintiff Kuokwing Wu filed a pre-motion letter concerning a planned motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The defendants filed a response, and the court held a pre-motion conference on December 3, 2020.
Order
The court ordered the parties to brief the motion according to this schedule:
- Wu had to file the motion and a memorandum of law, limited to 25 pages, by December 21, 2020. - The defendants had to file any opposition, limited to 25 pages, by January 8, 2021. - Wu had to file any reply, limited to 10 pages, by January 15, 2021.
The parties had to follow the court’s individual filing rules. Instead of filing an opposition, the defendants could confer with Wu and file a joint stipulation agreeing to conditional certification and the form of notice by January 8, 2021. Any such stipulation could preserve the defendants’ objections to final certification under the stricter standard used at that later stage.
Disposition and Effect
The court scheduled a telephone motion conference for January 28, 2021, at which it would give an oral opinion on the motion. The court stated that it would not hear argument, and that the conference would be canceled if the defendants stipulated to conditional certification. This order set procedures for the anticipated motion; it did not grant or deny conditional certification.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.