Legal Opinion

Morasse v. Gladiton Realty Corp.

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided April 2, 1946PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRivers, J.

Motion is denied without prejudice to an application by the persons referred to in the notice of motion for leave to come in as additional parties plaintiff. It seems to *874me that an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (U. S. Code, tit. 29, § 201 et seq.) is not truly a representative action in the sense that any one plaintiff truly represents a class. Accordingly any employees desiring to intervene in the action should apply for leave to do so and each employee should state separately in a separate count his alleged cause of action (cf. Simmons v. Rudolph Knitting Mills, 264 App.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pentland v. Dravo CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
  2. Simmons v. Rudolph Knitting Mills, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Fineshewitz v. East River Savings BankCity of New York Municipal Court · 1946
  2. Barb v. Manhattan Laundries, Inc.City of New York Municipal Court · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API