Legal Opinion
Noble v. 93 University Place Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 3, 2004No. 02 Civ. 1803(SAS)PublishedCited by 75 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*334 OPINION AND ORDER
SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
Nigel Noble brings this action, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against his former employer, 93 University Place Corp., d/b/a Healthy Pleasures (“Healthy Pleasures”), and its sole stockholder, Helene Burgess, alleging violations of New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).1 Noble now moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for class certification of his state law overtime pay claim, defining the class as those Healthy Pleasures employees who worked more than forty hours per week…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Dianne Castano v. The American Tobacco CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by75 opinions
- Iglesias-Mendoza v. La Belle Farm, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2007
- Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Frank v. Eastman Kodak Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 2005
- Espinoza v. 953 Associates LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 2008
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.