CAMARA v. MASTROS RESTAURANTS LLC
| KOLY CAMARA |
| MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS LLC |
| 1:2018cv00724 |
| March 29, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Washington, DC Office |
| 88888 |
| James E. Boasberg |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
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
43
ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) Defendant's 35 Motion to Stay is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 2) The litigation is STAYED pending the outcome of Defendant's appeal with the following exceptions; 3) Defendant by December 10, 2018, shall provide Plaintiff in Excel format with the full name, last known mailing address, last known email address, and last known phone number of each server in the conditionally certified collective; 4) By December 3, 2018, Defendant shall notify Pla intiff of the approximate size of the potential membership of the collective action; 5) Plaintiff shall have until February 19, 2019, to file any additional consent-to-join-suit forms; and 6) Plaintiff's 41 Motion to Enforce is DENIED as moot given this Order. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 11/26/2018. (lcjeb3)
|
|
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 31 ORDER on Defendant's 17 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss and Plaintiffs' 14 Motion for Notice. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/24/2018. (lcjeb3)
|
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 District Of Columbia 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.
