case from the Southern District of New York that holds that the fact tha ay or may not have out-of-state origins does not demonstrate that Plaintiff was engaged in interstate commerce. Supreme Court precedent has distinguished employees who handle goods for a wholesaler and move these goods interstate from those who handle goods after an employer acquires the goods for local disposition. See McLeod, 319 U.S. at 493, 63 S.Ct. 1248. While the FLSA provides protections for the former group, it may not for the latter. Id.; accord Thorne, at 1267, 2006 WL 1228863, at *3 (“When goods reach the customer for whom they were intended, the interstate journey ends and employees engaged in any further intra state movement of the goods are not covered under the Act”); Xelo, 2005 WL 2385724, at *4 (<HOLDING>). Even Plaintiff concedes that any goods she
holding that individual coverage is established if a substantial part of an employees activities related to goods whose movement in the channels of interstate commerce was established by the test we have described he is covered by the flsa holding that maintenance workers in a building that did produce goods for interstate commerce were covered under the flsa recognizing that interpreting the flsa to apply to a handler of any good which has moved interstate would negate the significance of the clause and ignore the intent of congress to create a distinction between certain workers whose activities were covered by the flsa and others whose activities were not recognizing the substantial body of case law discussing distinction between preliminary and postliminary activities on the one hand and principle activities of employment on the other holding under flsa