Guzelgurgenli v. Prime Time Specials Inc.
883 F. Supp. 2d 340
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Guzelgurgenli, Kasikci, and B. Kasikci filed a putative FLSA and NY Labor Law collective action seeking unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours compensation.
- Defendants include Prime Time Specials Inc. d/b/a Centereach Domino’s, Hanley, and John Does 1–10; stores are in Long Island, with eight locations identified in declarations.
- Plaintiffs allege a common policy of denying overtime pay across the Defendants’ Domino’s stores and that managers/shareholders directed day-to-day payroll practices.
- Hanley admits ownership of six Domino’s locations and that the Centereach, Holbrook, Coram, Sayville, Patchogue, and Stony Brook stores are owned/operated by Prime Time; Smithtown and Miller Place stores are disputed.
- Plaintiffs move for conditional certification under § 216(b) to notify and recruit potential opt-in plaintiffs; Defendants oppose broader scope and request limitations to Centereach drivers, arguing against including managers and extra locations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hourly employees, assistant store managers, and delivery drivers across Defendants’ stores are similarly situated. | Guzelgurgenli asserts a common overtime-denial policy across locations. | Hanley contends only Centereach drivers qualify, or that scope is narrower. | Conditionally certified for hourly employees, delivery drivers, and assistant store managers at Holbrook, Coram, Sayville, Patchogue, Stony Brook, and Centereach. |
| Whether store managers and the Smithtown/Miller Place stores may be included. | Plaintiffs rely on common policy evidence across all owned stores. | Plaintiffs failed to show employees there were similarly situated; managers lacked data. | Denied for store managers and for Smithtown/Miller Place stores. |
| What is the proper class period and opt-in duration at the notice stage. | Three-year period and ninety-day opt-in favored. | Two-year period and sixty-day opt-in preferred; no willfulness shown yet. | Three-year notice period; sixty-day opt-in; no reminder notice approved. |
| Whether a reminder notice should be sent to potential class members. | Reminder aids participation. | Reminders are unnecessary and potentially coercive. | Remand denied; reminder notice denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iglesias-Mendoza v. La Belle Farm, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (modest showing sufficient for initial certification; similarly situated requirement relaxed at stage one)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (court may approve notice to facilitate collective action)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (modest factual showing must identify nexus of similarly situated plaintiffs)
- Laroque v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 557 F.Supp.2d 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (evidence of manager statements can support conditional certification at early stage)
- Garcia v. Pancho Villa’s of Huntington Vill, Inc., 678 F.Supp.2d 89 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (court allowed nationwide-like class wiring based on common policy and ownership)
- Guillen v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., 841 F.Supp.2d 797 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (denied broader ASM nationwide certification; limits on similarly situated showing)