The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Orenstein, Magistrate Judge
On July 15, 2010, plaintiff Moung Su Kim ("Kim") filed a "Letter Motion to Certify Class." Docket Entry ("DE") 17.*fn1 Kim makes several requests relating to his claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against defendants Kap Sang Kim, Susanna Kim, and Shine Corporation ("Shine).*fn2 Specifically, he seeks an order conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as well as the resolution in his favor of certain disputes concerning the content of a notice to similarly situated current and former employees of Shine. Shine's response does not address much of Kim's motion, but it does oppose Kim's request to allow a four-month period for potential "opt-in" plaintiffs to join the case, and it seeks to have the notice include language reflecting its theory of the case as well as evidence that it contends supports that theory. DE 18.
A. Conditional Certification
I deny as moot Kim's request for "conditional certification" of a collective action. "Neither the FLSA nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the certification of an FLSA collective action." Henderson v. Transp. Grp., Ltd., 2010 WL 2629568, at *3 n.3 (citing Amendola v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 558 F. Supp. 2d 459, 463 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)). To the extent Kim seeks such conditional certification as a perceived prerequisite for circulating a notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, he seeks that which he does not need. I approve (and order) the circulation of such a notice because it will avoid delay in the litigation of this case and protect the rights of persons whose rights may be implicated in this litigation without unduly impairing the interests of the defendants.*fn3
Kim proposes that opt-in plaintiffs be allowed to file a consent to join this action within four months. Shine objects to such a long period, and I agree that it allows for unnecessary delay. I will permit opt-in plaintiffs to consent to join the action within 60 days of the date of the notice, provided that I will of course entertain an untimely motion to join on a showing of good cause for the delay.
Kim asks for leave to circulate the notice in both English and Korean. In the absence of any objection, I grant the request. Kim's counsel shall prepare a translation by July 26, 2010, and Shine shall respond with any objection to the translation by August 2, 2010.
Kim proposes to post the notice and a sample consent form in each of Shine's business locations. In the absence of any objection, I grant the request.
4. The Description of the Lawsuit
In Kim's proposed notice, potential opt-in plaintiffs are told that Kim "filed this lawsuit pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and alleges primarily that [the] Defendants have failed to pay salespeople overtime compensation required by federal law" and that the "Defendants entirely deny any wrongdoing." DE 17-2 (proposed notice) ¶ 1. Shine seeks to elaborate on the latter statement, and proposes "to include language indicating that outside salespersons are exempt from the FLSA" as well as "a Department of Labor fact sheet ... setting forth a ...