Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
19 opinions for “Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Group, Inc.”
Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Group, Inc.public domain
659 F.3d 234 (2011) Salim SHAHRIAR, Muhammad Islam, and Mary Harvey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Suhel Ahmed, Andrew Mellor, Maria Zayaruzny, Masud Ahad, Anthony Justin DeSouza, Nazaruddin Zaidan, Christopher Lee Robbins, Sebastian G. Joulain, Michael Mueller, Gous Uddin, Ron Elton Megason, Bobbi Kim, Nicholas Lee Mullins, Erasmo Dinninno, Matthew Alexander Wulf, Ishah Faith-Jannsen, Mahbub
Fermin v. Las Delicias Peruanas Restaurant, Inc.public domain
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, District Judge. By a motion filed August 25, 2014, plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. On November 6, 2014, this Court referred the matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge, the Honorable Vera M. Scanlon. On February 27, 2014, Magistrate Judge Scanlon issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that this Court (1)
Inclan v. New York Hospitality Group, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, District Judge. Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment in a collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), also involving supplemental claims under the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Plaintiffs, who are former waiters at a Manhattan restaurant called “Le Bateau Ivre,” operat
Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.public domain
17-2208, 18-359 Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2018 (Argued: February 13, 2019 Decided: April 1, 2020) Nos. 17-2208-cv, 18-359-cv MAXCIMO SCOTT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, JAY FRANCIS ENSOR, CHRISTIN
Zorrilla v. Carlson Restaurants Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiffs bring a nationwide wage-and-hour collective action, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and nine state-specific class actions, with each class alleging violations of the labor and/or the unfair *469competition laws of Californ
Chime v. Peak Security Plus, Inc.public domain
ORDER WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, District Judge: Plaintiff Paul Chime (“Plaintiff’) brought this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated alleging Defendants Peak Security Plus, Inc. (“Peak Security”) and Emmanuel Osula (“Osula”) (collectively, “Defendants”) violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) by failing to pay' Plaintiff, as well a
Raniere v. Citigroup Inc.public domain
OPINION SWEET, District Judge. In this action, the plaintiffs Tara Rani-ere (“Raniere”), Nichol Bodden (“Bod-den”), and Mark Vosburgh (“Vosburgh”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) have brought this action against Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and CitiMortgage Inc. (together, “Defendants” or “Citi”) to recover allegedly uncompensated overtime wages as well as liquidated damages. Plaintiffs also
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WEXLER, District Judge: Plaintiffs Ancelmo Simeon Mendez Lopez (“Lopez”) and Santos Natividad Cali Zambrano (“Zambrano”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Setauket Car Wash & Detail Center, TLCW, Inc., Karp Enterprises, Inc., Steven Saviano and Mark Chait (collectively “Defendants”) claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labo
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WEXLER, District Judge: This is an antitrust action stemming from Defendants’ use of certain contracts in connection with the business of small containerized waste hauling services on Long Island. The complaint originally alleged a conspiracy to restrain trade and an attempt to monopolize in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. In a previous Me
Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp.public domain
Smith, J. (dissenting in part). I agree with the majority to the extent that I too would answer the Second Circuit’s questions in a way favorable to Starbucks and adverse to plaintiffs in both cases. I would proceed by a simpler route, however: I think Labor Law § 196-d is inapplicable to this case. The conduct forbidden by the statute is to “demand or accept . . . any part of the gratuities . . . received by an
Douglas v. Allied Universal Sec. Servs.public domain
SANKET J. BULSARA, United States Magistrate Judge The parties have moved for reconsideration of the Court's prior decision declining to grant preliminary approval of their proposed class and collective action settlement. The motion for reconsideration contends that the Court's conclusion-finding that the proposed settlement was structurally incompatible with Cheeks and Section 216(b) of FLSA-rested on "overlooked facts and
Sanchez v. New York Kimchi Catering, Corp.public domain
OPINION AND ORDER Loma G. Schofield, United States District Judge Plaintiff Walter Neira Sanchez brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Acts (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) against his alleged former employers, Defendants New York Kimchi Catering, Corp., Gum Gang Inc. (“Gum Gang”), Un Cha Kim and Sandra Yoo. He moves for class certification on his claims arising under NYLL pursuant
Augustyniak v. Lowe's Home Center, LLCpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER JEREMIAH J. McCarthy, United States Magistrate Judge. INTRODUCTION The parties have consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) [47].1 Submitted for my consideration is the parties’ “Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Conditional Certification of an FLSA Collective Action for Settlement
Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp.public domain
DECISION & ORDER THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The plaintiffs in this action, all former employees of the defendants, have commenced this action, styled as a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and New York State Labor Law collective and class action, against the operators of approximately fifty-three Apple-bee’s Neighborhood Grill
Barenboim v. starbucks, Winans v. Starbucks Corp.public domain
REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judge: These appeals, heard in tandem, challenge awards of summary judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Laura Taylor Swain, Judge), in favor of defendant Starbucks Corporation on plaintiffs’ complaints that Starbucks violates New York Labor Law § 196-d in the distribution of tip pools
Thompson v. Bruister & Associatespublic domain
MEMORANDUM KEVIN H. SHARP, District Judge. This is a collective action involving claims on behalf of more than 1,700 cable technicians who worked under what they allege was a “culture of off-the-clock work,” wherein they were expected to perform over an hour of uncompensated work each day. Pending before the Court are Motions to Decertify (Docket Nos. 674 and 676) and Motions to Dismiss the
Hicks v. T.L. Cannon Corp.public domain
DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this action alleging violations of the New York Minimum Wage Act, New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) §§ 650 et seq., and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., for Defendants’ alleged failure to pay minimum wages to Plaintiffs. (Dkt. 82).
Mar-Cone Appliance Parts Co. v. Manganpublic domain
ORDER RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge. The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On June 4, 2012, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that third-party defendants John Giardino and Adam Greenberger’s motion to dismiss be granted. The Court has carefully reviewed the Report an
Floyd v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge: 1. INTRODUCTION Police officers are permitted to briefly stop any individual, but only upon reasonable suspicion that he is committing a crime.1 The source of that limitation is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure