Zambrano v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC

Background

Christian Zambrano, Luz Durango, Moira Riveros, and Rigoberto Romero brought a proposed collective and class action against Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC; David Kronick; Andrew Kronick; and Mike Ruccio. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants improperly classified delivery drivers as independent contractors and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law by failing to pay overtime, making deductions, and requiring drivers to pay certain work-related expenses.

The motion at issue was filed by Blanca Alulema and Maria Tacoaman. They sought: (1) conditional certification of an FLSA collective action; (2) pausing the statute of limitations for potential opt-in plaintiffs during the period when the case was stayed; (3) disclosure of contact information for potentially eligible workers; and (4) approval of a proposed notice.

The case had been stayed after the court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in 2016. In 2021, the court allowed the moving plaintiffs to amend the complaint in part and denied the request in part, and it permitted them to pursue conditional certification before the defendants sought to dismiss and compel arbitration against them.

Conditional Certification

At the first stage of an FLSA collective action, the court asks whether the plaintiffs have made a modest factual showing that they and potential opt-in plaintiffs were affected by a common policy or plan that violated the law. The court does not at this stage decide factual disputes or whether the alleged wage violations ultimately occurred.

The moving plaintiffs alleged that delivery drivers for Strategic Delivery Solutions in New York and New Jersey were subject to common practices, including failure to pay overtime premiums, deductions that reduced pay below required minimum or overtime wages, and requiring drivers to pay expenses for cars, insurance, maintenance, gasoline, tolls, and parking tickets. They also alleged that these practices resulted from the company’s classification of the drivers as independent contractors.

The defendants argued that the moving plaintiffs had not shown that they were similarly situated to drivers based at the Farmingdale and Elizabeth facilities and that any collective should be limited to those locations. The court rejected those arguments. It found that the moving plaintiffs’ firsthand observations, conversations with other drivers, compensation information, allegations about common policies, and the participation of other opt-in plaintiffs satisfied the modest showing required at this stage.

The court therefore conditionally certified the proposed collective of current and former delivery drivers, or workers in comparable roles under different titles, who worked for Strategic Delivery Solutions delivering pharmaceutical products to pharmacies or other locations in New York or New Jersey. The proposed notice period was ultimately extended to September 23, 2012, through the present because of the tolling ruling.

Equitable Tolling

Equitable tolling is a legal rule that pauses a filing deadline in appropriate circumstances. The court held that the FLSA statute of limitations for potential opt-in plaintiffs was equitably tolled during the stay, from September 22, 2016, to September 28, 2021. The court reasoned that the stay halted the litigation and prevented nonparties from joining through a conditional-certification and notice process.

The court explained that Alulema and Tacoaman had already opted into the case before the stay, so their claims were already tolled before and during the stay. The moving plaintiffs requested tolling for potential opt-in plaintiffs, and the court granted that request categorically for the stay period without requiring an examination of each potential plaintiff’s individual circumstances.

Contact Information and Notice

The court granted the request for defendants to provide the names, last known contact information, and employment dates of potential opt-in plaintiffs, including telephone numbers and email addresses. The request sought production within 15 days of the order.

The court did not approve the proposed notice. Instead, it directed the parties to meet and confer and submit a mutually agreed notice within 30 days, subject to the court’s approval. If they could not agree, they were directed to submit separate proposals for the court to decide.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to conditionally certify the FLSA collective and order disclosure of contact information. It withheld adjudication on the proposed notice and directed the parties to submit an agreed proposal within 30 days or separate proposals if necessary. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.