Agerbrink v. Model Service LLC et al
| Eva Agerbrink |
| Model Service LLC and Susan Levine |
| 1:2014cv07841 |
| September 26, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| J. Paul Oetken |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| None |
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
290
ORDER: The Court has been notified that the parties have reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The parties are advised that they may not dismiss this action with prejudice unless the settlement agreement has been approved by eit her the Court or the Department of Labor (DOL). See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015). Any letter motion, along with the settlement agreement, must be filed on the public docket within ninety (90) days of this order. All other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date are adjourned sine die. (And as further set forth in this Order.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 12/2/2019) (jca)
|
|
Filing
270
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Model Service LLC, William Ivers, Susan Levine, 242 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Eva Agerbrink, 239 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Eva Agerbrin k. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: MSA's motion for summary judgment on the m isclassification issue is GRANTED, and Agerbrink's motion for summary judgment on that issue is DENIED. The Court concludes that it is beyond genuine dispute that Agerbrink was an independent contractor and not an employee with respect to MSA. A gerbrink's motion for summary judgment as to MSA's tortious-interference counterclaim is GRANTED. Agerbrink's motion for summary judgment as to MSA's breach-of-contract counterclaim is DENIED. Agerbrink's motion for summary j udgment on her unjust enrichment claim is GRANTED as to the undisputed portion of her withheld earnings. Agerbrink is entitled to judgment in the amount of $13,768.15 plus prejudgment interest on that claim. All told, two issues remain: (1) what sum above $13,768.15, if any, MSA owes Agerbrink, and (2) MSA's breach-of-contract counterclaim. The parties shall submit a joint letter within two weeks of the date of this order, outlining their proposals on how to proceed with the case. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 239, 242, and 254. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 3/14/2018) (ama)
|
|
Filing
200
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 148 Motion to Compel; denying 163 Motion to Compel. For the reasons discussed above, the plaintiff's motion to compel (Docket no. 148) is granted in part and denied in part. Spe cifically, within thirty days of the date of this order, the defendants shall (1) produce for all exclusive fit models, except those with arbitration agreements, the same information they have previously provided with respect to Ms. Agerbrink and the exemplar models; for exclusive fit models who have arbitration agreements with MSA, the defendants shall those agreements; (2) produce financial check reports and reports on "go-sees" for all exclusive fit models except those with arbitrat ion agreements; and (3) permit plaintiff to inspect and copy, at her expense, the contracts, vouchers, and schedule books. In all other respects, the plaintiff's motion is denied. The defendants' motion to compel disclosure of tax returns (Docket no. 163) is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 3/8/2017) Copies Transmitted this Date By Chambers. (anc)
|
|
Filing
140
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 92 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Eva Agerbrink. For the foregoing reasons, Agerbrink's motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 92. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 7/20/2016) (ama)
|
|
Filing
90
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 57 MOTION for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice. For the reasons discussed above, the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice (D ocket no. 57) is granted in part and denied in part. The proposed notice, as modified above, shall be disseminated. Within two weeks of the date of this opinion, the defendants shall produce a computer readable list of potential opt-in plaintiffs inc luding their full names; last known addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses; and dates of employment and of their exclusive fit modeling contract term, including renewal periods. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 2/2/2016) Copies Sent By Chambers. (adc) Modified on 2/2/2016 (adc).
|
|
Filing
76
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: For the reasons discussed above, the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (Docket no. 50) is granted. The plaintiff shall file the Second Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of the date of this order. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 1/7/2016) (cdo)
|
|
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above: 1. The defendants shall send the Corrective Notice attached at Appendix A by e-mail to all recipients of the Ivers E-mail within 7 days of the date of this Order; 2. The defendants shall produce to the plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this Order any and all correspondence between Mr. Ivers and fit models relating to this litigation; 3. All future communications by the defendants to potential opt-in plaintiffs about the litigation shall be in writing. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 10/27/2015) Copies Transmitted By Chambers. (tn)
|
|
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by Model Service LLC, Susan Levine. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically , Plaintiff's seventh cause of action for a declaratory judgment is DISMISSED. The remaining claims in the complaint survive. Defendants shall answer the amended complaint on or before July 7, 2015. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the motion at docket number 17. Susan Levine answer due 7/7/2015; Model Service LLC answer due 7/7/2015. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 6/16/2015) (kko)
|
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.
