Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Antonio Martinez, and Felipe v. Jose Gilberto Silveira

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 2, 2011

ANTONIO MARTINEZ, AND FELIPE NUNEZ TORRES,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JOSE GILBERTO SILVEIRA, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DOES ONE THROUGH TWENTY INCLUSIVE DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT (Doc. 60)

On December 8, 2009, Plaintiffs, Antonio Martinez and Felipe Nunez Torres, filed a First Amended Complaint in the Merced County Superior Court naming Jose Gilberto Silveira as a Defendant. The FAC alleges eleven causes of action : (1) failure to pay minimum wage, 2) failure to provide tools and equipment, 3) liquidated damages for failure to pay minimum wage, 4) a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ("FLSA") 5) failure to pay overtime, 6) failure to provide rest breaks, 7) failure to provide meal periods, 8) failure to maintain time records, provide itemized statements, 9) failure to pay all wages due upon discharge, 10) restitution and injunctive relief, and 11) violations of Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. Defendant removed the action to this Court on February 10, 2010. (Doc. 1).

On September 10, 2010, this Court adopted the parties' stipulation and granted conditional certification as an FLSA collective action. Potential class members were notified and their right to opt-in was explained. Four additional Plaintiffs opted-in pursuant to the notification. On October 6, 2011, the parties entered into an agreement settling the claims of the two named Plaintiffs, as well as all of the opt-in Plaintiffs. (Doc. 60).

The Court has reviewed the settlement and is inclined to adopt the agreement. However, upon review of the pleadings, it appears that the agreement addresses the FLSA claims but not the outstanding state law claims. If Plaintiffs intend to litigate the state law claims, the Court will need to address class action requirements pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prior to approval of the settlement agreement. However, if these claims are dismissed, the Court can proceed with FLSA action. Accordingly, within five days, Plaintiffs shall file a status report outlining their intentions regarding the state law claims. Alternatively, Plaintiffs may submit the requisite dispositional documents dismissing those causes of action and the case will proceed according to the FLSA settlement approval process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111202

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.