Nicely v. Howard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs failed to show how employees other than delivery persons and chefs were subject to a common policy or practice in violation of the FLSA
• noting that “the delay in ruling on a motion for conditional approval, coupled with the plaintiffs’ diligence and avoiding prejudice to potential plaintiffs,” may be “enough to grant equitable tolling”
• noting that the “fact that Plaintiffs’ proposed notice explicitly advises potential opt-in plaintiffs that they may consult or retain another attorney, mitigat[es] concerns that putative class members may be discouraged from retaining their own counsel”
• reducing opt-in period from 90 to 60 days where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate \special circumstances\ that would warrant more than the standard 60-day opt-in period
• reducing opt-in period from 90 to 60 days where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate \special circumstances\ that would warrant more than the standard 60-day opt-in period
• limiting opt-in period to 60 days where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate \special circumstances\ that would warrant a 90- day opt-in period

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).