Mendez v. Radec Corp.

Summary

The court considers defendants’ motion to decertify a Rule 23(b)(3) class in an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Defendants argue that class counsel is inadequate and that individual issues predominate, including because counsel simultaneously pursued summary judgment and class certification and failed to obtain class notice. The decision explains the court’s continuing duty to reassess certification and addresses the alleged inadequacy of class counsel.

Holdings

1. The alleged errors and delays by class counsel, including simultaneous summary-judgment and certification motions, delayed notice, failure to pursue additional defendants, and failure to file a separate consent for Mendez, did not establish inadequate representation warranting decertification.
2. Defendants waived any objection to the simultaneous filing and adjudication of the summary-judgment and class-certification motions by failing to raise the issue when those motions were pending.
3. The court's prior rulings that Radec engaged in specified unlawful wage practices were part of the law of the case and could apply to the certified class, subject to each class member establishing that the unlawful policies applied to him or her.
4. Decertification was not warranted because common questions concerning Radec's allegedly unlawful wage and overtime policies continued to predominate over individualized damages and factual issues.
5. CPLR § 901(b) did not require decertification because class members could waive liquidated damages or opt out; class members who remained in the class would have to waive Labor Law liquidated-damages claims.
6. Mendez's signed affirmation, read together with the caption and its statement that he was the named plaintiff in an action brought on behalf of similarly situated employees, satisfied the written-consent requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the previously certified Rule 23(b)(3) class should be decertified because class counsel allegedly failed to provide adequate representation.
2. Whether the simultaneous filing and adjudication of class-certification and partial-summary-judgment motions warranted decertification under the rule against one-way intervention.
3. Whether the failure to seek court-approved notice or to pursue additional alleged joint employers demonstrated inadequacy of class counsel.
4. Whether the absence of a separately filed written FLSA consent by the named plaintiff demonstrated counsel's inadequacy or invalidated Mendez's participation in the FLSA collective action.
5. Whether individual issues had come to predominate over common issues under Rule 23(b)(3).
6. Whether New York CPLR § 901(b) barred class treatment of the New York Labor Law claims.

Disposition

other