Shc liquidating trust craigs list adult dating

1987).....................................................................................................19 Aguayo v. 1995) ..........................................................................................................6 Am Base Corp. 2007)................................................................................10, 19, 21 840 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1999)........................................................................................10 Bursell v.

13, 2002)...............................11 Bell Atlantic Corp.

2003).........................................................................................................4 America Casualty Co.

Nordic Leasing, Inc., 42 F.3d 725 (2d Cir.1994)..........................................................................................................6 Ansoumana v.

Case -cv-08718-RMB-THK Document 31 Filed 02/22/2008 Page 1 of 44 OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Adam T. Swartz (JS 7989) Anjana Samant (AS 5163) Tammy Marzigliano (TM 2934) Cara E. PLAINTIFFS MAY BRING A CLASS ACTION AND A COLLECTIVE ACTION TOGETHER .......... The Class Mechanism is Important to NYLL Enforcement.

Greene (CG 0722) 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC Richard J. 24001807) (admitted pro hac vice) 1415 Louisiana, Suite 2125 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK No. 8718 (RMB) SIRI DIAZ, CAROLYN SIEGEL, TALIA BUMB, BLERTA VIKKI, DANIELLE OWIMRIN, SUSAN LEVIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- SCORES HOLDING COMPANY, INC.; GO WEST ENTERTAINMENT, INC. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DISCOVERY UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (“RULES”) 56(F) AND 12(D), AND IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION AND COURT- AUTHORIZED NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 216(B) OF THE FLSA Case -cv-08718-RMB-THK Document 31 Filed 02/22/2008 Page 2 of 44 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... THE COURT SHOULD DENY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE PROCEDURAL MECHANISMS UPON WHICH DEFENDANTS RELY................................................... SCORES HOLDING COMPANY CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY, AT LEAST NOT AT THIS EARLY STAGE OF THE CASE..................................................................................................................... Plaintiffs Adequately State a Claim That SHC is Liable for Wage and Hour Violations. The Licensing Agreements and the Smith Declaration Do Not Satisfy Defendants’ Summary Judgment Burden.................................................................................................... The Limited Discovery Plaintiffs Have Taken is Sufficient to Defeat a Summary Judgment Motion. Alternatively, the Court Should Grant Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Discovery Under Rule 12(d) and Rule 56(f)....................................................................................................... PLAINTIFFS’ STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR EAST SIDE WORKERS.

Leave a Reply