Legal Opinion
Winans v. Starbucks Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 11, 2011No. 08 Civ. 3734(LTS)(JCF)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum Order
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Eugene Winans, Michael Bienthcs, Reynold Mangones, Matthew Taber and Kristen Tomaino (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), formerly employed as Assistant Store Managers (“ASMs”) in stores operated by Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks” or “Defendant”), bring this putative statewide class action asserting a claim against Starbucks for alleged violations of New York Labor Law § 196-d (“Section 196-d”). Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled, pursuant to Section 196-d, to participate in distributions from Starbucks stores’ collective tip…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Laura Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
- Richard Morales v. Quintel Entertainment, Inc. And Peter StolzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
- Caldarola v. CalabreseCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Matamoros v. Starbucks CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2012
- Barenboim v. starbucks, Winans v. Starbucks Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
- Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2013
- Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2023