Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A.
Plaintiff: Digna Ruiz
Defendant: Citibank, N.A.
Case Number: 1:2010cv05950
Filed: August 6, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: John G. Koeltl
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 201
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
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
August 4, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 227 OPINION AND ORDER re: (222 in 1:10-cv-05950-KPF-RLE) MOTION for Reconsideration re; (219) Memorandum & Opinion filed by Digna Ruiz, Dara SW Ho: For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsi deration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Entry 222. The remaining parties are directed to appear before the Court for a status conference on August 18, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 8/4/2015) (tn)
March 19, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 219 OPINION AND ORDER re: (187 in 1:10-cv-05950-KPF-RLE) LETTER MOTION for Conference (Pre-Motion) to Dismiss With Prejudice Eight Sample Opt-in Plaintiffs addressed to Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis from Thomas A. Linthorst dated May 23, 2014. filed by Citibank, N.A., (182 in 1:10-cv-05950-KPF-RLE) MOTION to Certify Class filed by Digna Ruiz: Because the proposed class actions lack common questions of law or fact, Plaintiffs' motion to certify class act ions under the New York Labor Law, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act Revision Act is DENIED. In addition, because the opt-in plaintiffs are not similarly situated, Defendant's motion to decertify the collective action under the FLSA is GRANTED. The claims of the plaintiffs who have opted in to the collective action are DISMISSED without prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Entries 178, 182, and 187. The C ourt further grants the parties' letter requests to file redacted versions of their briefs and to file certain exhibits to the declarations in support of and opposition to their briefs under seal. Having weighed the factors set forth by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), the Court finds that the parties' interest in preserving Plaintiffs' financial privacy and protecting the confidentiality of certain of Defendants' m anuals and training materials outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. The remaining parties are directed to appear before the Court for a status conference on April 7, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/19/2015) (tn)
August 19, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 213 OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 192 : Because the Court has adopted the Report in its entirety, it is hereby ORDERED that the FLSA claims of Brian Araujo, Eliyahu Lederman, Matthew Nyden, Hemrajie Persaud, and Ting Yen Wang are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 8/19/2014) (tn)
February 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 82 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court has considered all of the arguments of theparties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, the remaining arguments are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the defendants motion to strike hears ay statements is denied without prejudice. The plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action pursuant to § 216(b) of the FLSA1 and for court-authorized notice is granted. The defendant's request to amend the Proposed Notice to the putative class is denied without prejudice to the parties' ability to present any further disagreements to the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The defendant is directed to supplement the Class List to include Personal Bankers who worked at New York branches from August 6, 2004 to the present who do not already appear on the list. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 33 in Case No. 10 Civ. 5950. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 1/27/2012) (djc)
January 4, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 22 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: #99814 Defendant Citibank, N.A. (Citibank) objects to the November 8, 2010 Memorandum Opinion and Order of Magistrate Judge Dolinger (the "Order") requiring Citibank to produce the names, addresses, and phon e numbers of all persons nationwide employed by Citibank as "personal bankers." For the reasons set forth, the objections are overruled. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 15. SO ORDERED. (See MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as set forth) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 1/4/2011) (lnl) Modified on 1/10/2011 (ajc).
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: Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Digna Ruiz
Represented By: Marc Ian Gross
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: Citibank, N.A.
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?