The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder
CATHERINE JEANG Not Present N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Proceedings: (In Chambers:) DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE COURT'S 8/10/09 ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 USC § 1292(b) (filed 10/2/09)
The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing date of October 26, 2009, is hereby vacated and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
On June 30, 2008, plaintiff Arthur Ellerd filed the instant "collective action" against defendant the County of Los Angeles ("the County") for "overtime compensation and other relief" pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-209 ("FLSA").
On February 9, 2009, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, plaintiffs Arthur Ellerd and Jose J. Troconis filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") against defendant alleging that defendant failed to pay plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.
On April 9, 2009, this Court denied plaintiffs' "Hoffman-La Roche Motion for 'conditional certification' of collective action; issuance of class notice; and equitable tolling of limitations" without prejudice.*fn1
On August 10, 2009, the Court granted plaintiff Arthur Ellerd's "Hoffman-La Motion for 'conditional certification' of a collective action, issuance of class notice, and equitable tolling of limitations." The Court ordered notice to be issued both by mail and by workplace posting to the class, defined as follows:
ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED AS AN ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES SOCIAL WORKER AT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES AT ANY TIME FROM JUNE 20, 2005, TO THE PRESENT.
On October 2, 2009, defendant filed the instant motion for interlocutory appeal of the Court's conditional certification of plaintiff's class. On October 12, 2009, plaintiff filed his opposition. On October 19, 2009, defendant submitted its reply. After carefully considering the arguments set forth by the parties, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by defendant as an Adult Protective Services Social Worker ("social worker") from approximately June 30, 2005, through January 3, 2007. Plaintiff further alleges that he, and other similarly situated employees, "were not regularly paid time and one-half of their rate of pay for all hours worked ...