Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al
| Yatram Indergit |
| Rite Aid Corporation and Frank Francis |
| 1:2008cv09361 |
| October 31, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Labor: Fair Standards Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Paul G. Gardephe |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
315
OPINION AND ORDER: I write to resolve the parties' dispute concerning whether counsel for defendants in other actions pending in California may directly contact and speak with three individuals who have opted in to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§201 et seq. ("FLSA"), claims asserted in this action without the presence of those individuals' counsel in this action. Accordingly, for all the reasons set forth above, I conclude that: Counsel for Rite Aid, oth er than Rite Aid's counsel in this action, may contact Lockhart, Gauger and Jens directly and interview them, limited to theirsupervision of plaintiffs in the California actions who are not parties in this action. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 10/31/2016) Copies Sent By Chambers (cf)
|
|
Filing
298
OPINION AND ORDER: There is no reason to depart from these conclusions, particularly given the standard for Rule 72(a) relief...For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' objections to Magistrate Judge Pitmans Order are OVERRULED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 1/19/2016) (mt)
|
|
Filing
292
ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, defendants' application to take the depositions of eight class members from the entire New York class of over 1,700 store managers is granted. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 11/30/2015) Copies Transmitted by Chambers. (mro)
|
|
Filing
257
OPINION AND ORDER re: 245 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 239 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid of New York, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, Rite Aid's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket number 245. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 6/17/2014) (lmb)
|
|
Filing
239
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 218 MOTION for Decertification filed by Rite Aid of New York, Inc., 220 MOTION to Certify Class Under Rule 23 filed by Yatram Indergit. The Court takes this opportunity to note the complexity of these types of cases. At the highest level of generality, many claims offer common questions for resolution. In contrast, reduced to the specificity of the absurd, no two groups are similar. This case lies in the shadowland between these two distinct realms. There are ex amples of discrepancies among the members of both the FLSA classes and the Rule 23 class. RA has pointed to testimony of SMs reflecting some fluctuations in their jobs fluctuations that are largely dependent on factors that differ among stores, such as labor allocation, size, location, and experience of staff. And yet, a close, rigorous look at the record testimony reflects that in most areas crucial to the exemption inquiry hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, discretion, scheduling, vendor -contact, merchandising, and primary role there are meaningful common questions and answers that predominate over the variation. A case in the hinterland between the common and the distinct such as this necessitates a judgment call based on the most complete view of the record possible. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants motion to decertify the FLSA class is DENIED and Plaintiffs motion to certify the class of New York store managers, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs proposed class is hereby certified for purposes of liability only. Plaintiffs counsel, Valli Kane & Vagnini and DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy, are appointed class counsel. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at docket entry numbers 218 and 220.SO ORDERED.(Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 9/26/2013) (ama)
|
|
Filing
170
ORDER: A tape-recorded conference call having been held on November 22, 2011, for the reasons stated on the tape-recording of the call, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The parties are directed to confer with each other concerning the location of the Di strict Manager depositions. If any disputes arise concerning the location of particular depositions, the parties may then raise those specific disputes with me. The centralization of these depositions will promote efficiency and is, therefore, desirable, as set forth in this order. ( Motions due by 3/29/2012., Responses due by 5/30/2012., Replies due by 7/13/2012.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 11/23/2011) Copies Sent By Chambers. (lmb)
|
|
Filing
103
MEMORANDUM OPINION that for these reasons, Indergit's motion for court-authorized notice was GRANTED in this Court's 3/31/10 Order. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 6/15/10) (cd)
|
|
Filing
92
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, Defendants motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs FLSA and NYLL retaliation claims are dismissed, as are Plaintiffs personal claims for injunc tive relief. Rite Aid's motion for partial summary judgment is otherwise DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion. [Docket No. 71]. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 3/31/2010) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:08-cv-09361-PGG, 1:08-cv-11364-PGG(jpo) Modified on 4/1/2010 (ad).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
