Martinez v. Petrenko

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that individual or enterprise nexus to commerce requirement is “an essential element” of a FLSA claim
• noting that “all of the facts upon which [the plaintiff] belatedly sought to demonstrate [liability] were known to him before he filed his complaint”
• noting that defendants cannot be forced to \engage in discovery based not on what was pleaded but also on what might have been pleaded\
• finding that a motion to intervene had been wrongfully denied because “the potential inadequacy of representation came into existence only at the appellate stage”
• noting that defendants cannot be forced to “engage in discovery based not on what was pleaded but also on what might have been pleaded”
• explaining the findings that New Hampshire state law requires for piercing the corporate veil under Druding v. Allen, 451 A.2d 390, 393 (N.H. 1982)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).