United States District Court, S.D. New York
CHRISTOPHER GONYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
VANE LINE BUNKERING, INC. d/b/a VANE BROTHERS COMPANY, Defendant
For Christopher Gonyer, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Andrew W Dunlap, Fibich, Hampton, Leebron, Briggs & Josephson, LLP, Houston, TX; Brian Scott Schaffer, Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, New York, NY; Joseph A. Fitapelli, Fitapelli & Schaffer, New York, NY; Richard Jennings Burch, Bruckner Burch PLLC (TX), Houston, TX.
For Eric Bridges, Alfred LeBlanc, David Ferace, Plaintiffs: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Fitapelli & Schaffer, New York, NY; Richard Jennings Burch, Bruckner Burch PLLC (TX), Houston, TX.
For Christopher Glancy, Mark Mills, Plaintiffs: Richard Jennings Burch, Bruckner Burch PLLC (TX), Houston, TX.
For Andrew Thomas Page, Larry Harrison, Plaintiffs: Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, New York, NY.
For Vane Line Bunkering, Inc, doing business as Vane Brothers Company, Defendant: Mercedes Colwin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Vincent Mantella Avery, Gordon & Rees, LLP, New York, NY; Brian Jason Turoff, Michael J. Volpe, Nicholas Marco Reiter, Venable LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, New York, NY; Mark A. Beckman, Gordon & Rees, LLP (NY), New York, NY; Ronald Wayne Taylor, PRO HAC VICE, Venable LLP, Baltimore, MD.
OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the complaint to name Eric Bridges and Mark Mills as additional lead Plaintiffs. (Doc. Nos. 51, 67.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion to amend is deemed made and granted.
Plaintiff Christopher Gonyer filed the Complaint in this Fair Labor Standards Act (" FLSA" ) case on November 27, 2013. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 28, 2014, between approximately 12:08 p.m. and 6:40 p.m., Bridges, Alfred LeBlanc, and David Ferace filed notices of consent to become plaintiffs. (Doc. Nos. 51, 52, 53.) Later that day, at approximately 7:50 p.m., Plaintiffs' counsel filed a letter advising the
Court that (1) Gonyer received and intended to accept a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment made by Defendant on May 12, 2014; and (2) counsel sought to amend the complaint to name Bridges as the new lead plaintiff. (Doc. No. 54.) On May 29, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a Notice of Acceptance on behalf of Gonyer accepting the Offer of Judgment. (Doc. No. 55.) On June 2, 2014, Defendant filed a letter opposing Plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint, arguing that the case terminated when Gonyer accepted the Offer of Judgment and contending that no other plaintiffs had joined the action prior to that acceptance. (Doc. No. 58.)
On June 4, 2014, the Court held a telephone conference to discuss the issues raised in the parties' letters. (Doc. No. 62.) The Court reserved its ruling, and permitted the parties to file additional submissions in further support of their respective positions. ( Id.) Plaintiffs and Defendant filed supplemental letters on June 10 and June 6, 2014, respectively. (Doc. Nos. 61, 64.) On June 19, 2014, Plaintiffs filed two more notices of consent, on behalf of Christopher Glancy and Mark Mills. (Doc. Nos. 65, 66.) Also on June 19, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a letter seeking leave to ...