Michael v. Bloomberg, L.P.
Plaintiff: Eric Michael
Defendant: Bloomberg, L.P.
Case Number: 1:2014cv02657
Filed: April 14, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Thomas P. Griesa
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 203
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 13, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 489 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER......Bloombergs request for a curative jury instruction is denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 4/13/2018) (gr)
March 23, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 434 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER......Defendants March 20, 2018 motion to decertify plaintiffs state-law claims is denied as untimely and on the merits. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/22/2018) (gr)
November 7, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 335 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER......Bloombergs October 11 motion for stay pending appeal is denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 11/7/2017) (gr)
September 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 310 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.....The defendants September 15, 2016 motion for summary judgment is granted. The NYLL claims brought by Roseman are dismissed with prejudice. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 9/27/2017) (gr)
September 25, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 308 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: On September 21, 2017, this Court issued an Opinion (September 21 Opinion) granting the plaintiffs motion to certify a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in connection with the claim brought by Bloombergs New York-base d Analytics Representatives for a violation of New York Labor Law § 650 et seq. (NYLL). On August 19, 2016, the plaintiffs also moved to certify the following California class: all representatives in the Analytics Department in California who w ere not paid time and one-half for hours over 40 worked in one or more weeks or hours over 8 worked in one or more days at any time within the four years preceding the filing of this Complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter. It is und isputed that over 100 current and former Bloomberg employees are putative members of this California class. For the reasons that follow, and for the reasons set forth in the September 21 Opinion, the plaintiffs motion is granted.... (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 9/25/2017) (gr)
September 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 307 OPINION AND ORDER......The plaintiffs August 19, 2016 motion for certification of a NYLL class for Analytics Representatives is granted. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 9/21/2017) (gr)
April 4, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 290 OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons discussed above, the Court denies Bloomberg's motions to dismiss at this time. However, plaintiffs Edward DaCosta, Catherine Fox, and Joseph Marfil shall respond to Bloomberg's document requests and shall file affidavits with the Court signaling their intent to remain in this litigation no later than May 19, 2017. Failure to comply with this order shall result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b). This Opinion and Order resolves Docket Numbers 152 and 169. SO ORDERED. re: 169 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bloomberg, L.P. 152 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bloomberg, L.P. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 4/4/2017) (rjm)
November 14, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 245 OPINION & ORDER: On October 28, 2016, plaintiffs filed a letter-motion ("Motion for Leave") asking for leave to file a Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts and a Supplemental Declaration of Michael Russo in connection with their pending Motion for SJ. Defendant filed its opposition to plaintiffs' Motion for Leave on November 4, 2016. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs' Motion for Leave is denied. The Court therefore denies plaintiffs' request for leave to file a Supplemental Statement of Material Facts and a Supplemental Declaration of Michael Russo. To the extent that plaintiffs feel it necessary to rebut defendant's argument, which was raised in defendant's opposition to plaintif fs' motion for class certification, plaintiffs should do so in their reply papers in connection with that pending motion. The Court expresses no opinion as to what plaintiffs may or may not include in their reply papers in connection with their motion for partial summary judgment. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 11/14/2016) (kl)
May 18, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 44 OPINION & ORDER #105518 re: 38 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 37 Memorandum & Opinion, and to Amend the Case Caption, filed by Bloomberg, L.P. Defendants' motion is granted. The court rules as follows: The proposed notice shall be modified to include plaintiffs full name, as set forth in Dkt. No. 40-1; The proposed consent form shall be modified to remove the prior case caption; and Plaintiffs request for equitable tolling is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption in this case to read: "ERIC MICHAEL ROSEMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant." The Clerk of Court is also directed to terminate the motion listed as item 38 on the docket. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 5/18/2015) (kko) Modified on 5/19/2015 (soh).
April 17, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 37 OPINION: The court (1) conditionally certifies this action as a collective action pursuant to § 216(b) of the FLSA, (2) authorizes the issuance of plaintiff's proposed notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, and (3) orders defendants to provide the requested information-with the exception of social security numbers, dates of birth, and telephone numbers-for all persons employed by Bloomberg within 3 years preceding the date that the collective action notice is issued. Plaintiff may send the notice by email and may distribute a reminder notice before the end of the opt-in period, but Bloomberg need not post the notice in the workplace. This opinion resolves the motion listed as item 8 on the docket. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 4/17/2015) (kl)
February 11, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 30 OPINION re: 8 MOTION to Approve Collective Action Notice filed by Eric Michael, 11 MOTION for Protective Order Notice of Motion filed by Eric Michael. The court denies plaintiff's motion for a protective ord er and leave to proceed pseudonymously. Plaintiff is directed to file a second amended complaint identifying the plaintiff by name within 30 days of the date of this opinion. The second amended complaint shall otherwise be identical to the first amen ded complaint. Should plaintiff not file a second amended complaint identifying plaintiff by name before this deadline, the court will dismiss the FAC without prejudice. This opinion resolves item 11 on the docket. SO ORDERED. (See Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 2/11/2015) (ajs)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Michael v. Bloomberg, L.P.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Eric Michael
Represented By: Dan Charles Getman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Bloomberg, L.P.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?