Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Godlewska v. Human Development Association

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


April 13, 2006

ELZBIETA GODLEWSKA, KRYSTYNA BIELAWSKA, BARBARA HATALA, AND BARBARA PILCH, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
HDA, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., D/B/A HDA, YECHILA GRUENWALD A/K/A YECHIEL GRUENWALD INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HDA, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., ZVI KESTENBAUM, MARINA VOSKOBOYNIKO, GOLDA POKHIS A/K/A OLGA POKHIS, MARGARITA ZILBERT, JANE DOE A/K/A "MRS. FRIEDMAN," AND JANE DOES 1-10 AND JOHN DOE 1-10, BEING FICTITIOUS NAMES, THEIR TRUE IDENTITIES NOT YET KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Azrack, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

On February 28, 2006, plaintiffs moved to amend their First Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) and Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt No. 62: First Mot. to Am./Correct Compl. ("Motion to Amend") (02/28/06)). By order dated March 2, 2006, the Honorable David G. Trager, United States District Judge, referred plaintiffs' Motion to Amend to me for decision (Dkt No. 67: Order Referring Mot. (03/02/06)). In addition to other amendments, plaintiffs seek (i) to substitute defendants Jane Does with the Personnel Specialists' real names: Eva Friedman, Irene Gadzhiyeva, Sarah Juroviesky, Ella Rashkova, Bella Slomivc, Rita Strashnov (the "proposed defendants"); (ii) to add a new claim under the theory of third-party beneficiary to a prevailing wage contract against existing and substituted defendants; (iii) to join the City of New York, New York City Human Resources Administration and the Honorable Verna Eggleston as Commission of the NYC Human Resources Administration (the "municipal defendants") as additional defendants; and (iv) to assert claims against the Municipal Defendants under (a) the FLSA; (b) a theory of third-party beneficiary to a prevailing wage contract; and (c) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of plaintiffs' rights, privileges and immunities. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c), plaintiffs move for all claims contained in the Second Amended Complaint to relate back against existing and substituted parties.

Plaintiffs and proposed municipal defendants are hereby ordered to submit letter briefs of no more than seven pages, identifying the statute of limitations period for each claim in the First Amended Complaint and for the claims plaintiffs seek to add in the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs are further instructed to identify the exact date each claim began to run, as to each existing and proposed defendant, and, where appropriate, to identify the date on which the claim expired. The proposed municipal defendants are instructed to do the same for all claims relevant to them. All parties must submit their letter briefs no later than Wednesday, April 19, 2006. The Court will consider no applications for extensions of time regarding this Order.

SO ORDERED.

JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20060413

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.