Ramos et al v. Telgian Corporation
Plaintiff: Edward Kralick, Dennis Ramos and Ed Rodriguez
Defendant: Telgian Corporation
Case Number: 1:2014cv03422
Filed: May 30, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge: Lois Bloom
Presiding Judge: Pamela K. Chen
Nature of Suit: Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 24, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 81 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons in the attached, Defendant's 78 Motion for Reconsideration is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. The Court reverses its denial of summary judgment to Defendant on the second element of the FWW scheme sole ly as to Plaintiff Kralick and otherwise denies reconsideration. This action shall proceed to trial on two questions--first, whether Defendant paid Plaintiffs Ramos, Rodriguez, and Emerson their fixed salaries regardless of the number of hours worked , and second, whether there existed a clear mutual understanding as to all Plaintiffs that their fixed salaries were intended to compensate them for every hour actually worked, rather than for some fixed number of hours. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 1/24/2017. (Gregorio, Heather)
June 3, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 65 ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, the Court DENIES 62 Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Interlocutory Appeal Decision and its motion to certify additional questions for interlocutory ap peal. Plaintiffs shall proceed with their interlocutory appeal, and Defendant may renew its motion for reconsideration of the Court's 3/31/16 Summary Judgment Order after resolution of that appeal. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 6/3/2016. (Levanon, Neta)
May 3, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER terminating 57 58 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 59 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; and denying 60 Motion to Stay: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, the Court finds that its 3/31/16 Order involves two controlling questions of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and whose resolution on appeal will materially advance this litigation. For that reason, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for certification f or interlocutory appeal as to the following two questions:1) Whether the applicability of the FWW method of compensation requires that employees' work hours fluctuate both above and below 40 hours across workweeks; and2) Whether an e mployer's failure to recalculate employees' regular, and therefore overtime, rates from week to week, as prescribed by the FWW regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 778.114, renders the FWW payment scheme unavailable to an employer, such as Defendan t, that implements a compensation scheme ensuring its employees greater overtime premiums than would result under the method of calculation dictated by the FWW regulation.In its discretion, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the Court stays these proceedings, and further terminates Defendant's motion for reconsideration (Dkts. 57 - 58 ), with leave to renew after resolution of Plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal.In addition, because a Second Circuit reversal of the Court& #039;s 50 3/31/16 Order on either of the two issues certified for interlocutory appeal in the attached would obviate Defendant's 57 58 motion for reconsideration, the Court finds that it is in the interests of efficiency to first resolve Pl aintiffs' 59 motion for interlocutory appeal, and therefore denies 60 the parties' joint request to hold that motion in abeyance pending resolution of Defendant's motion for reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 5/3/2016. (Levanon, Neta)
March 31, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 50 ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Based on the Court's rulings, there remain two issues of fa ct to be determined regarding the applicability of the fluctuating workweek scheme: first, whether Defendant paid Plaintiffs their fixed salaries regardless of the number of hours worked, and second, whether there existed a clear mutual understandin g that Plaintiffs' fixed salaries were intended to compensate them for every hour actually worked, rather than for some fixed number of hours. The Court believes, in light of its rulings, that the issue of class and/or collective certification should be determined prior to any trial. Therefore, the parties shall submit, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, a joint proposed discovery and briefing schedule for certification. Should either party object to proceeding in this manner, that party shall file a letter within 14 days of the entry of this Order, setting forth the bases of its objection. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/31/2016. (Levanon, Neta)
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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ramos et al v. Telgian Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Edward Kralick
Represented By: Lloyd Robert Ambinder
Represented By: Jack Lee Newhouse
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 ]
Plaintiff: Dennis Ramos
Represented By: Lloyd Robert Ambinder
Represented By: Jack Lee Newhouse
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 ]
Plaintiff: Ed Rodriguez
Represented By: Lloyd Robert Ambinder
Represented By: Jack Lee Newhouse
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: Telgian Corporation
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?