Brickey et al v. Dolgencorp, Inc. et al
| 6:2006cv06084 |
| February 9, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Rochester Office |
| Jonathan W. Feldman |
| David G. Larimer |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 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
224
ORDER denying plaintiffs' 222 Motion for Reconsideration re 221 Order on Motion to certify the action as a collective one under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 3/30/11. (EMA)
|
|
Filing
221
ORDER denying plaintiffs' motion to certify this action as an FLSA collective action 104 , to certify additional subclasses for state claims originating out of New York, Ohio, Maryland and North Carolina 128 , as well as plaintiffs' reque st for expedited notice to class members. The matter will proceed solely on the part of the six named plaintiffs, Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell, Melinda Sappington, and Jennifer Anderson. Dolgencorp's motion to dismi ss the claims of plaintiffs who did not appear for depositions 146 is denied without prejudice, and plaintiff Brickey is hereby reminded of her obligation to comply with discovery in this case, ordered to appear for properly-noticed depositions in the future, and warned that her failure to do so may result in the dismissal of her claims. The remainder of the parties' motions to strike, and for leave to file supplemental submissions 122 , 127 , 147 , 162 , and 179 are denied as moot. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 2/23/11. (EMA)
|
|
Filing
171
ORDER that plaintiffs' response 170 , which I treat as a motion for reconsideration, is denied. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 10/30/09. (EMA)
|
|
Filing
137
ORDER re plaintiffs' 104 128 MOTION to Certify Class. By letter dated 8/13/09, defendants seek leave to file one Memorandum of Law in response to both motions with a 60 page limitation. By letter dated 8/13/09 plaintiffs do not oppose defend ants' request but seek leave to file a single 30 page Memorandum of Law in reply to defendants' Memorandum in opposition.The page extensions requested seem excessive but, in the interest of completeness, I will GRANT BOTH REQUESTS. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 8/17/09. (EMA)
|
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 Western 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
| Search for this case: Brickey et al v. Dolgencorp, Inc. et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
