Bartels v. Sperti, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
MEDINA, District Judge.
Union officials having brought these several actions as agents or representatives of certain employees of defendants, pursuant to the authority found in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216 (b), now make identical motions for an order that the employees whose names are set forth in the schedules annexed to the complaints, including all employees whose names have been added to such schedules by prior order of this Court, shall “for all purposes” be “deemed” to be specifically named as party plaintiffs herein and that the complaint be “deemed” amended…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Boehle v. Electro Metallurgical Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1947
- Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1947
- Cochran v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1947
- Story v. Todd Houston Shipbuilding CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1947
- Fajack v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1947
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Fair Housing Development Fund Corp. v. BurkeDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1972
- Seese v. Bethlehem Steel Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1947
- Kemp v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1948
- Gibbons v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
- EW Bliss Company v. Cold Metal Process CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1959
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.