Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Halliwell v. A-T Solutions

United States District Court, S.D. California

September 10, 2014

LOGAN HALLIWELL and AARON SLEICHTER, Plaintiffs,
v.
A-T SOLUTIONS, Defendant.

ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 42]; (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW [Doc. No. 43]; (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF [Doc No. 44]; (4) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DISCOVERY ORDER [Doc. No. 53]; and (5) SCHEDULING BRIEFING DEADLINES FOR CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge.

On July 31, 2014, Plaintiffs Logan Halliwell and Aaron Sleichter ("Plaintffs") filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's November 7, 2013 order dismissing Plaintiffs' California Private Attorney General Act claim without prejudice. (Doc. No. 42.) On August 25, 2014, A-T Solutions ("Defendant") filed its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 50.) On August 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their reply. (Doc. No. 52.)[1] On July 31, 2014, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for an order requiring Defendant to submit classified evidence for in camera review. (Doc. No. 43.) On August 25, 2014, Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for an order requiring in camera review of classified evidence. (Doc. No. 51.) On August 29, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their reply. (Doc. No. 54.) On August 5, 2014, Defendant filed an ex parte motion to stay or, alternatively, to extend the discovery cut-off. (Doc. No. 44.) On August 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendant's ex parte motion to stay. (Doc. No. 45.) Defendant did not file a reply. On August 29, 2014, Defendant filed an objection to the magistrate judge's August 15, 2014 order determining discovery disputes. (Doc. No. 53.) On September 5, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendant's objection. (Doc. No. 56.)

On September 9, 2014, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' and Defendant's motions. Paul Jackson and Jeffrey Jackson appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Brent Caslin and Kelly M. Morrison appeared on behalf of Defendant. After due consideration, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motion for an order requiring Defendant to submit classified evidence for in camera review, grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion to stay or, alternatively, extend the discovery cut-off, and grants in part and denies in part Defendant's objection to the magistrate judge's discovery order without prejudice to further request.[2]

Background

Plaintiffs Logan Halliwell and Aaron Sleichter are former employees of A-T Solutions. (Doc. No. 1 "Compl." ¶¶ 7-8.) Defendant A-T Solutions is a contractor for the United States military. (Id. ¶ 10.) Defendant employed Plaintiffs as combat ready instructors and assigned them to give instructions to military personnel at various sites in California. (Id. ¶ 10.)

Plaintiffs allege that while employed by Defendant, Defendant treated them as exempt employees under state and federal labor laws. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant should have treated them as non-exempt employees and paid them overtime wages. (Id. ¶¶ 14-16.) Defendant claims Plaintiffs were exempt from California and federal overtime laws under the "learned professional, administrative, and/or teacher exemptions." (Doc. No. 11 at 8.)

Defendant claims it needs to use classified and "official" information to establish that Plaintiffs were exempt employees under California and federal law. (Doc. No. 51 at 7.)

Procedural History

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendant. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege Defendant violated the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay Plaintiffs overtime wages, pay Plaintiffs for being held on call, provide proper wage statements, and timely pay all wages due at termination. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-38.) Plaintiffs' complaint also contained a cause of action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of themselves, the state of California, and other employees. (Id. ¶¶ 39-42.)

On September 24, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' PAGA claim. (Doc. No. 5.) On November 7, 2013, the Court granted Defendant's motion, dismissed Plaintiffs' PAGA claim without prejudice, and granted Plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 10.) On December 20, 2013, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiffs' complaint. (Doc. No. 11.) On May 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint, but withdrew that motion on June 9, 2014. (Doc. Nos. 20, 31.)

On April 1, 2014, the magistrate judge held a scheduling conference and on April 3, 2014 the magistrate judge issued the Court's scheduling order. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19.) During the scheduling conference, the parties discussed the impact of classified information on the discovery process. (Doc. No. 19.) The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer in good faith with regard to all discovery disputes, including disputes related to classified information. (Id.)

On May 15, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on Defendant's exemption defense. (Doc. No. 21.) On May 21, 2014, Defendant filed an ex parte motion to stay the case for four months. (Doc. No. 22.) On May 27, 2014, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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