Alvarez v. 40 Mulberry Restaurant, Inc. et al
| Roger Alvarez |
| 40 Mulberry Restaurant, Inc., Asia Roma, Inc. and Peter Chin |
| 1:2011cv09107 |
| December 13, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Kings |
| Paul A. Engelmayer |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 |
| 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
27
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment by 40 Mulberry Restaurant, Inc. and Peter Chin. filed by 40 Mulberry Restaurant, Inc., Peter Chin. For the foregoing reasons, the motion for partial summary judgment in favor of defendan ts 40 Mulberry Restaurant, Inc. and Peter Chin is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket number 17. The parties are afforded until November 5, 2012, to conduct further discovery on the question of whether Asia Roma w as an "enterprise engaged in commerce" during the period of Alvarez's employment. If, after additional discovery, defendants 40 Mulberry and Chin wish to move again for summary judgment, their motion is due by November 19, 2012. Alvare z's opposition is due by December 3, 2012, and defendants' reply by December 10, 2012. Any application for a default judgment against the non-appearing defendants must be submitted by October 15, 2012. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 10/3/2012) (jfe)
|
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.
