Cluster 8748436

But see Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (declining to follow Fielder). .

But see Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (declining to follow Fielder ). 8 The Matteis also cite the amendment to subpart (c)(2)(B) of Rule 23 to support their argument that conditional certifications are no longer proper.

But see Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Cofp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 89-96 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (allowing certification of class including approximately 1000 plaintiffs with state-law wage claims where 345 employees had filed their consents to join the FLSA collective action).

But see Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 89-96 (S.D.N.Y.2001).

Corp., 372 F. Supp. 3d 95, 121 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (collecting cases). these differences are relatively minor and relate primarily to the level of damages, if any, owing to each individual”); Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“The differences among the Plaintiffs as to the number of hours worked, the precise work they did, and the amount of pay they received concern the amount of damages to which any individual Plaintiff might be entitle…

Although individual questions as to damages may exist, “common legal issues related to the members’ entitlement to overtime wages and the proper measure of such wages clearly predominate over these relatively simple, mechanical calculations.” Whitehorn, 275 F.R.D. at 200 (quoting Padilla, 271 F.R.D. at 450 ); see also Ansoumana, 201 F.R.D. at 86 (“[I]ndividualized questions concerning the number of hours worked, overtime, etc., will not predominate over the larger question o…

Although individualized determinations must be made as to the amount of wages, overtime, and spread of hours pay each Plaintiff is due based on the hours projected for their shift and the number of hours worked, “common legal issues related to the members’ entitlement to overtime wages and the proper measure of such wages clearly predominate over these relatively simple, mechanical calculations.” Padilla v. Maersk Line, 271 F.R.D. at 450 ; Ansouma-na, 201 F.R.D. at 86 (“indi…

“Because the same set of operative facts is being applied and analyzed under both statutory frameworks, justice is served and consistency and efficiency are achieved by having the litigation in one forum.” Id. (citing Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 89 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)).

The critical inquiry is whether the common questions are at the ‘core’ of the cause of action alleged.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ansoumana, 201 F.R.D. at 86 (“The differences among Plaintiffs as to the number of hours worked, the precise work they did, and the amount of pay they received concern the amount of damages to which any individual Plaintiff might be entitled if and when liability is found.

See Bolanos v. Norwegian Cruise Lines Limited, 212 F.R.D. 144, at 148 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (holding “different . . . departments kept track of overtime using different methods, differences in departments, job duties, and even factual variations in plaintiffs’ claims should not defeat class certification . . . where all plaintiffs claim they were denied overtime.”); Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (differences such as “the number of hours…

The Southern District of New York has held that “the transient nature of [class members’] work” is a factor suggesting “that individual suits as an alternative to a class action are not practical.” Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

The adequacy inquiry involves two steps: (1) the named plaintiffs must “demonstrate that ‘class counsel is qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation,’” and (2) that “‘there is no conflict of interest between the named plaintiffs and other members of the plaintiff’s class.’” Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 87 (S.D.N.Y.

Turner v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC., 292 F.Supp.3d 650, 654 (D.S.C. 2017) (citing Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) and Hicks v. T.L.

See Robidoux, 987 F.2d at 937 (“[T]he typicality requirement is usually met irrespective of minor variations in the fact patterns underlying individual claims.”); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (finding typicality requirement met despite differences among plaintiffs as to number of hours worked, type of work, and amount of pay because those factors related to the amount of damages not class certification requirements).

Cannon Corp., 35 F. Supp. 3d 329, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (authorizing opt-in FLSA plaintiffs to seek redress as to NYLL claims); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (authorizing supplemental jurisdiction over opt-in FLSA plaintiffs’ state law claims); Fengler v. Crouse Health Sys., Inc., 634 F. Supp. 2d 257, 262 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (allowing opt-in FLSA plaintiffs to seek damages for all claims asserted in the action).

In such cases, there may be individual questions as to damages – but not as to liability – and “individual questions with respect to damages will not defeat class certification … .” Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

Code § 32-1012 (a) (“A civil action [under the DCMWA] may be commenced according to § 32-1308.”). 2 Without opt-in and written- 2 The new DCMWA also clarifies that employees are “similarly situated” for its purposes if they “[a]re 8 consent procedures that “restrict[] the right of recovery . . . to those who affirmatively file consents to participate in the suit[,]” Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 84 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), group claims brought under the new…

See Advanced Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc., 106 F.3d 11, 19-21 (2d Cir.1997) (discussing Rule 15(c), but allowing relation back based on substituting a real party-in-interest under Rule 17(a)); Ruggles v. Wellpoint, Inc., 687 F.Supp.2d 30 (N.D.N.Y.2009) (the plaintiffs did not request relation back and Rule 15(c) was not at issue); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 95 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (noting that "state and federal [wage-and-hour] claims are…

Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 87 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (citation omitted).

Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 88 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (“[T]hose affected must be given an option: to gain the convenience of class membership, or opting-out and suing individually.”); see also Eisen v. Carlisle, 417 U.S. 156, 176 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974) (emphasis added) (“[Under Rule 23], each class member who can be identified through reasonable effort must be notified that he may request exclusion from the action and thereby preserve his…

Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 85-86 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (finding in a hybrid action that plaintiffs satisfied numerosity because, among other reasons, they “would not be likely to file individual suits [due to] ... their fear of reprisals”); O’Brien v. Encotech Const. Servs., Inc., 203 F.R.D. 346, 351 (N.D.Ill.2001) on reconsideration, 183 F.Supp.2d 1047 (N.D.Ill.2002) (finding in a hybrid action that plaintiffs satisfied numerosity, recognizing that joi…

District courts have “wide discretion” in deciding whether to certify a proposed class under Rule 23, id. (citing Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 96 (S.D.N.Y.2001)), and “[t]he Second Circuit has directed district courts to apply a liberal, rather than restrictive, interpretation to Rule 23. ” Lee, 236 F.R.D. at 202 (citing Korn v. Franchard Corp., 456 F.2d 1206, 1208-09 (2d Cir.1972)) (additional citation omitted).

Jan. 13, 2006) (finding commonality among plaintiffs who alleged that they had been denied overtime wages pursuant to defendants' policy); Noble, 224 F.R.D. at 343 (finding commonality where potential class members alleged harm from defendants’ common practice of failing to adequately compensate them for overtime hours in violation of New York Labor Law); Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2001) ("The differences among Plaintiffs as to the nu…

Place Corp., 224 F.R.D. at 343 (finding commonality despite differences among plaintiff employees relating to amount of unpaid overtime due); Bolanos v. Norwegian Cruise Lines Ltd., 212 F.R.D. 144, 157-58 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (certification of class action under Rule 23(b)(3) recommended for case involving unpaid overtime despite necessity of individualized damage calculations); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (in class action for minimum…

Noble, 224 F.R.D. at 343 (citing Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2001)).

The “predominance” requirement “is a more demanding criterion than the commonality inquiry under Rule 23(a).” Moore v. PaineWebber, Inc., 306 F.3d at 1252 (citing Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 ); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 89 (S.D.N.Y.2001).

“The predominance criterion is, in effect, a stricter version of the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).” Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 89 (S.D.N.Y.2001).

Co., 448 F.3d 416, 424 (D.C.Cir.2006) ("While there is unquestionably a difference-indeed, an opposite requirement-between opt-in and opt-out procedures, we doubt that a mere procedural difference can curtail section 1367's jurisdictional sweep.”); Iglesias-Mendoza v. La Belle Farm, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 363, 374 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (certifying both FLSA collective action and Rule 23 class action, despite procedural differences); Bartleson v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., No. C02-3008-M…

See, e.g., Tones, 2006 WL 2819730 , at *8 (accepting plaintiff's factual allegations as true on class certification motion); Noble, 224 F.R.D. at 337 (same); Ansoumana, 201 F.R.D. at 85 (same); Maneely, 208 F.R.D. at 72 (same); D'Alauro, 168 F.R.D. at 454 (same).

Place Corp., 224 F.R.D. 330, 343 (S.D.N.Y.2004); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2001).

Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2001).

“It is well-established that individual questions with respect to damages will not defeat class certification or render a proposed representative inadequate unless that issue creates a conflict which goes to the heart of the lawsuit.” Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (quoting In re AM Int’l, Inc. Sec.

Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 515 F.Supp.2d at 549-50 ; Holster, 485 F.Supp.2d at 185 ; Bonime , 2006 WL 3751219 , at *3; Leider, 387 F.Supp.2d at 291 ; In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 221 F.R.D. at 285-86 ; Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 88 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (applying CPLR 901(b) to claims for statutory penalties brought under New York Minimum Wage Act); Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 2001 WL 624807 , at *16; Dornberger, 182 F.R.D. at 84 .

Jan. 13, 2006); Scholtisek v. Eldre Corp., 229 F.R.D. 381, 395 (W.D.N.Y.2005); Noble v. 93 University Place Corp., 224 F.R.D. 330, 346 (S.D.N.Y.2004); Scott v. Aetna Services, Inc., 210 F.R.D. 261, 268 (D.Conn.2002); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Brzychnalski v. Unesco, Inc., 35 F.Supp.2d 351, 353 (S.D.N.Y.1999).

Aug.16, 2001) (defendants contested class certification on the grounds that commonality and typically were lacking and that plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 85-87, 90, 93-96 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (defendants argued Rule 23 requirements not met and court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law class action, though defendants never contended circumvention of § 216(b)’s opt-in requirement const…

Nov.29, 2004) (same); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 88-89 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (same).

Mass. 2004); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81 *740 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); and Dornberger v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

May 4, 2004) (“[Sjection 901(b) is arguably substantive”); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 88 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (applying § 901(b) to action proceeding in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction); but see In re Oot, 112 B.R. 497, 502 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1989) (finding that § 901(b) is a procedural rule).

Apr. 16, 2003) (exercising supplemental jurisdiction over class claim for violation of Pennsylvania wage and hour statute, citing efficiency concerns); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 89-90 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (exercising supplemental jurisdiction over class New York state minimum wage claims); Beltran-Benitez v. Sea Safari, Ltd., 180 F.Supp.2d 772, 774 (E.D.N.C.2001) (exercising supplemental jurisdiction over class claim for violation of North Carolina wa…

In Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp. 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2001), the court similarly held: “The differences among the Plaintiffs as to the number of hours worked, the precise work they did, and the amount of pay they received concern the amount of damages to which any individual Plaintiff might be entitled if and when liability is found,” not the amenability of the plaintiffs’ claims to the class action form.

See, e.g., Leider v. Ralfe, 387 F.Supp.2d. 283 (S.D.N.Y.2005); Ansoumana v. Ghistede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 95 (S.D.N.Y.2001); Domberger v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

June 16, 2005), and Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 95 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), for the same argument.

Apr. 16, 2003) (exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, noting that Fair Labor Act and the state wage act, Pa. Stat. Ann. 43 § 104(c), both “require overtime pay for each hour in excess of forty hours per week that the employee works”); Beltran-Benitez v. Sea Safari, 180 F.Supp.2d 772, 773-74 (E.D.N.C.2001) (exercising supplemental jurisdiction over claims of improper deductions of certain wage amounts under the North Carolina law where plaintiffs also allege…

Lexis 24006, at *15 (Nov. 29, 2004 S.D.N.Y.); Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 95 (S.D.N.Y.2001); Brzychnalski v. Unesco, Inc., 35 F.Supp.2d 351, 353 (S.D.N.Y.1999).

Place Corp., 224 F.R.D. 330, 343 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (same); Bolanos v. Norwegian Cruise Lines Ltd., 212 F.R.D. 144, 157-58 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (certification of class action under Rule 23(b)(3) recommended for case involving unpaid overtime despite necessity of individualized damage calculations); Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (in class action for minimum wage and overtime violations, individual differences relating to damages did not defea…

Place Corp., 224 F.R.D. at 343 (finding commonality despite differences among plaintiff employees relating to amount of unpaid overtime due); Bolanos v. Norwegian Cruise Lines Ltd., 212 F.R.D. 144, 157-58 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (certification of class action under Rule 23(b)(3) recommended for case involving unpaid overtime despite necessity of individualized damage calculations); Ansoumana v. Ghistede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (in class action for minimum…

May 19, 2003) (“the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of opt-ins and non-opt-ins is proper under the circumstances of this case”) (citing Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., 301 F.3d 1163, 1173-74 (9th Cir.2002)); Scott, 210 F.R.D. at 264 (noting that court had earlier found it appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over members of Rule 23 class who had not opted into FLSA class, because their claims arose from same employment relationship t…

Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 94-95 (S.D.N.Y.2001); Dornberger, 182 F.R.D. at 84 ; In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 221 F.R.D. at 285-86 ; Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 2001 WL 624807 , at *16; In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 127 F.Supp.2d 702, 727 (D.Md.2001), opinion supplemented by, 2001 WL 137254 (D.Md.

April 16, 2003); Chavez v. IBP, Inc., 2002 WL 31662302 , *1 (E.D.Wash. *121 Oct. 28, 2002); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 94 (S.D.N.Y.2001).

Feb.7, 2002) (noting the absence of a pendent-party issue because the plaintiff was intending to move for certification of a Rule 23 class on state law claims that only consisted of the FLSA opt-in members); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 95-96 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (certifying Rule 23 class for state law claims where approximately 350 plaintiffs had already filed consents for collective action on FLSA claim).