Carusillo v. Fansided, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-04766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Carusillo v. FanSided, Inc.: Judge Oetken denied reconsideration and interlocutory-appeal certification in an FLSA collective-action case.
The ruling affected Plaintiffs Brandon Carusillo and David Gate, Defendants FanSided, Inc. and Sportority, Inc., and potential collective-action members who were Site Experts working during the specified period.
What happened
In Carusillo v. FanSided, Inc., Defendants asked Judge Oetken to reconsider or clarify an earlier order about notice to potential participants in the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. The case involved Plaintiffs Brandon Carusillo and David Gate.
The Court clarified that notice could go to Site Experts who worked from September 4, 2017, through June 22, 2020. It also clarified that the time extension for people who do not join the collective action ends when the notice period ends. The Court rejected Defendants’ argument that Carusillo’s claim should be dismissed because his contractual relationship ended before a Deadspin article was published.
Judge Oetken also rejected Defendants’ request to appeal immediately the legal standard for deciding whether workers are similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court denied both Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal.
The detailed version
- Carusillo v. Fansided, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04766
- James Oetken
- Nov. 5, 2021
Background
Defendants FanSided, Inc., doing business as FanSided, and Sportority, Inc., doing business as Minute Media and FanSided, moved for reconsideration or clarification of the Court’s September 21, 2021 Opinion and Order. They also sought certification for an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the case is finished. Plaintiffs Brandon Carusillo and David Gate opposed the motions.
Clarifications and Carusillo’s claim
The Court stated that notice of the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action was limited to Site Experts who worked during the period from September 4, 2017, through June 22, 2020. The Court also stated that equitable tolling—the extension of a filing deadline in appropriate circumstances—for people who do not join the collective action ends when the notice period is completed.
Defendants argued that Carusillo’s claim should be dismissed because his contractual relationship with FanSided ended before the Deadspin article was published. The Court found that argument without merit. It explained that its earlier conclusion that Plaintiffs had adequately alleged willful conduct was not based solely on the article; the allegations also included that the Bradley action was filed in September 2017 and that Defendants knew about that litigation from its beginning.
Interlocutory appeal
Defendants sought certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) of a question concerning the legal standard for deciding whether a plaintiff is “similarly situated” to people the plaintiff seeks to represent under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They argued that the Second Circuit had not expressly adopted the Court’s two-step process for evaluating that requirement.
The Court disagreed, citing Second Circuit decisions stating that the appellate court had previously endorsed a two-step process for certifying Fair Labor Standards Act collective actions. The Court therefore concluded that Defendants had not shown that the requirements for an interlocutory appeal were met.
Disposition
The Court denied Defendants’ motions for reconsideration and for certification of an interlocutory appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.