Pierre v. City Of New York
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-05116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Pierre v. City of New York, Judge Figueredo scheduled a conference about delayed records and a request to pause FLSA deadlines; no ruling appears.
The conditionally certified FLSA collective, the plaintiff, the City defendants, and the vendor defendants were affected by the records delay and the requested pause of claim deadlines.
What happened
In Pierre v. City of New York, the plaintiffs asked the court to pause the Fair Labor Standards Act’s deadlines for workers who may join the case. The request concerned claims against several vendor defendants whose records were needed to notify potential workers about the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs said the City defendants needed more time to provide names, addresses, email addresses, and employment dates for the conditionally certified group of workers. The City defendants agreed to pause the deadlines through the date they provide that information, but the vendor defendants did not sign a similar agreement.
Judge Valerie Figueredo scheduled a telephone conference and directed counsel to explain the delay in compiling the records and how much additional time the City defendants expected to need. The provided text does not show a ruling on the request to pause the deadlines against the vendor defendants.
The detailed version
- Pierre v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-05116
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 21, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs requested that the court pause the statute of limitations—the deadline for bringing claims—under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for members of a conditionally certified group of workers. The request applied to claims against Duane Reade Inc., B & H Photo Video Pro Audio LLC, Trihop 14th Street LLC, and Bloomberg L.P., referred to in the letter as the vendor defendants.
The plaintiffs stated that the court had conditionally certified the FLSA collective and had previously paused the limitations period from November 2, 2021, through September 27, 2022. The court had also directed the City defendants to provide names, last known addresses, personal email addresses, and employment dates for potential members so that notices could be sent explaining the lawsuit and the opportunity to join it.
The plaintiffs said the City defendants had not yet produced the required records and had requested additional time. The City defendants entered into a tolling agreement with the plaintiff, under which the limitations period and other time-related defenses would be paused from September 26, 2022, through the date the records were provided. The vendor defendants refused to enter into such an agreement. The agreement stated that it did not admit that the claims were valid or had merit.
Court’s Action
The provided text shows that Judge Valerie Figueredo scheduled a telephone conference for November at 3:00 p.m.; the day appears garbled in the text. The court directed counsel to explain why compiling the records had been delayed and how much more time the City defendants expected to need.
The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the plaintiffs’ request to pause the limitations period against the vendor defendants. It therefore does not show a merits ruling on the FLSA claims or a final ruling on the requested tolling relief.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.