Through its Motion for Summary Judgment, Mobility sought to dismiss all opt-in plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") unpaid overtime claims on the ground that plaintiffs could not factually prove their claims and that some of those claims were untimely. The Court's May 11 Order rejects Mobility's Motion for Summary Judgment and finds that there are important fact issues that cannot be resolved in Mobility's favor on summary judgment. The Court's May 11 Order also notes that "some of the evidence in this case suggests that certain plaintiffs may be able to recover damages from Mobility for uncompensated overtime work."

Although the Court's denial of summary judgment allows plaintiffs' cases to proceed to a trial, the Court's May 11 Order also granted Mobility's Motion to Decertify the Collective Action, which impacts the location of any such trial. The Court previously certified this case as a collective action in April 2009, which allowed the opt-in Retail Sales Consultants (RSCs) and Assistant Store Managers (ASMs) to have their unpaid overtime claims litigated in the Southern District of New York Federal District Court ("SDNY"). Now, however, the May 11 Order provides that not all opt-in plaintiffs can proceed to trial in the SDNY. Because not all plaintiffs can proceed to trial in New York, it will be necessary for opt-in plaintiffs to file their claims now in the appropriate court, if they still would like to be paid for previously unpaid overtime. Thus, while the May 11 Order affects where, that is, in which court, an opt-in plaintiff's FLSA claim can be tried, it does not affect the merits of that claim Plaintiffs' lawyers have begun communicating individually and privately with the opt-in plaintiffs to explain further their options regarding their FLSA claims. It is imperative that the opt-in plaintiffs act promptly after these communications as any delay in proceeding with your lawsuit may limit your potential recovery for unpaid overtime.