Advanced Litigation of Wage and Hour Class Cases 2008 ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law Annual CLE Conference
|
|
- Gervais Barton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Advanced Litigation of Wage and Hour Class Cases 2008 ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law Annual CLE Conference COORDINATING CLASS CERTIFICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WAGE AND HOUR CLAIMS AND DISCOVERY ISSUES Gregory K. McGillivary WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C Telephone: (202)
2 Increasing opportunity exists to successfully bring hybrid state law class actions/federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions in federal court has expanded. In the past the traditional defense raised against such actions was to attempt to convince the federal court not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C The advent of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) 1 and the D.C. Circuit s decision in Lindsay v. Gov t Employees Ins. Co., 2 however, has essentially eviscerated this defense. In hybrid actions, counsel are confronted with a number of strategic issues. First, plaintiffs must decide whether to bring the state class action in conjunction with the FLSA action. In many states, such as California, the wage and hour claims under state law provide equal or better protections for workers than the FLSA may provide. Some other considerations are the number of plaintiffs involved in the state action, how different the state law claims may be from the federal claims, how many different state classes exist in the case and the degree to which the federal court or judge may be receptive to hearing multiple state law claims in conjunction with an FLSA action. 1 CAFA greatly expands federal court jurisdiction over class actions. It amends, among other sections of the U.S. Code, 28 U.S. C to include a new subsection (d) which grants original jurisdiction to federal district courts in any civil action in which: the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000; is a class action with minimal diversity, meaning any member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a different state from the defendant; and in reaching the $5,000,000 limit, permits the plaintiffs to aggregate the value of their claims F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On remand, the district court certified a class of New York state employees. Lindsay v. GEICO, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (July 3, 2008).
3 Assuming, however, that the plaintiffs decide to pursue both the state and FLSA claims in federal court, this paper discusses options and strategic considerations regarding coordination of certification of the state class action and FLSA collective action, and how to align the discovery in each. Issues can arise such as: How much discovery should be conducted/contested prior to certification? Should certification of 16(b) collective actions and Rule 23 state class actions be pursued at different phases of the litigation and, if so what are the consequences? Does the timing of certification requests affect the ability to argue for representative plaintiffs for purposes of discovery? Should class representatives serve for both 16(b) and Rule 23 actions? If plaintiffs with new state law claims in Rule 23 states opt in a 16 (b) action, should those plaintiffs claims be filed exclusively in state court? I. Coordinating Class Certification of State and Federal Claims The tension between the timing of when to seek class certification of state and federal wage and hour claims arises primarily as a result of the different standards for certification. 3 The FLSA and the state law claims are often the same or similar, and arise out of the same source of misconduct the failure to follow statutory rules regarding payment of overtime or other workplace 3 The title of this section is somewhat of a misnomer with respect to federal wage and hour claims. Since section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b), requires each plaintiff to opt in the action by filing a consent form, the conditional certification is for a putative class of plaintiffs who only become actual plaintiffs when they opt in the action.
4 requirements such as providing meal breaks or rest periods. In addition, the state law claims may provide for broader remedies or a longer limitations period. A. Generally, Initial Certification in an FLSA Collective Action is Immediately Sought and Little or No Discovery Prior to Seeking Certification is Required or Desirable Certification of a collective action under the FLSA is more lenient and easier to obtain than the traditional Rule 23 class certification that is available for wage and hour actions in many states. Indeed, it is now well-established that courts apply a two-step process in determining whether to certify an FLSA action under section 16(b) by providing notice to all similarly situated current and former employees. 4 The first step is the notice stage in which the district court makes a decision about whether to conditionally certify the plaintiffs claims as being similarly situated to other employees and providing notice to all such employees who fall within the FLSA s limitations period. 5 In the first step, courts apply a lenient standard in making this determination and certification is conditional. 6 For example, courts do not resolve contradictory evidence or make credibility 4 See, e.g., Thiessen v. G.E. Working Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, (10 th Cir. 2001); Hipp v. Liberty Nat l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (11 th Cir. 2001);Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1214 (5 th Cir. 1995); Lima v. Int'l Catastrophe Solutions, Inc, 493 F. Supp. 2d 793 (E.D. La. 2007); Trezvant v. Fidelitiy Employer Services Corp., LLC, 434 F.Supp. 2d 40, 43 (D. Mass. 2006)(recognizing that majority of courts both within and outside the First Circuit have adopted the two-step approach). 5 The FLSA contains a two year statute of limitations which is extended to three years in the case of willful violations. 29 U.S.C. 255(a). 6 E.g., Clausman v. Nortel Networks, 2003 WL (S.D. Ind. 2003).
5 determinations at the initial certification stage. 7 The standard at the first step is much easier to meet than the commonality requirements of Rule The second step in certification of an FLSA collective action typically occurs at the end of discovery on the merits of the plaintiffs claims. The defendants may initiate the second stage of the certification by filing a motion to decertify the collective action. Certification of the collective action should be sought as soon as possible in the litigation. There are two primary reasons for this: First, the statute of limitations is not tolled in FLSA actions for the putative class; second, once notice is issued and employees join in the action, there is the possibility in some cases that plaintiffs will join the lawsuit who have state law claims in states that provide for Rule 23 actions and in which the original plaintiffs did not work. Under the FLSA, the statute of limitations is not tolled until an employee affirmatively opts in a case. 9 This can result in different time periods for the plaintiffs claims depending on when their individual consent forms are filed in court. In contrast, in Rule 23 class actions, upon certification, the class members 7 E.g., Kalish v. High Tech. Inst., 2005 WL (D. Minn. 2005); Katusch v. Premier Communications, 2007 Wl (W.D. Mo. 2007). 8 Grayson v. K-Mart Corp., 79 f. 3d 1086, 1098 (11 th Cir. 1996); Igesias-Mendoza v. La Belle Farm, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 358, (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Rodollico v. Unisys Corp. 199 F.R.D. 468 (E.D. N.Y. 2001) U.S.C. 216(b). In situations in which the employer has delayed notice being sent to the employees or whether other justifications exist for doing so, the courts will toll the limitations period for FLSA claims during the opt in notice period. See, e.g. Partlow v. Jewish Orphans' Home of Southern California, Inc., 645 F.2d 757, 761 (9th Cir. 1981), abrogated on other grounds by Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 110 S. Ct. 482, 107 L. Ed. 2d 480 (1989); Mowdy v. Beneto Bulk Transp., 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis (N.D. Cal. 2008); Baden- Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, 484 F.Supp. 2d 822 (S.D. Ohio 2007).
6 claims all relate back to the original filing date. Thus, there is a great deal more urgency in a section 16(b) FLSA action that the court provide notice to the putative class members and give them an opportunity to join the case in order to toll the limitations period. Since the standard in section 16(b) actions is quite lenient, typically the plaintiffs do not require (nor do they want) any discovery to meet their initial burden for certification. Generally, extensive discovery is not necessary at the notice stage. 10 Instead, if the plaintiffs allegations are supported by affidavits, that is usually sufficient for conditional certification. 11 Of course, to provide notice of the putative plaintiffs right to join the wage lawsuit, after conditional certification has occurred, the plaintiffs must obtain the names and addresses of each member of the putative class of employees. It is well-established that this request will be granted. 12 Discovery may be necessary to obtain the names and addresses of employees to whom notice will be sent. If the employer did not keep adequate records of present and former employee addresses, as required under 29 CFR 516.2(a) then plaintiffs can seek enhanced notice of the collective action, including in such different manners as placing the notice in employee paychecks, 10 Lynch v. US Auto. Ass n, 491 F. Supp. 2d 357, (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 11 E.g., Dietrich v. Liberty Square, LLC, 230 F.R.D. 574 (N.D. Iowa 2005); Davis v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., 408 F.Supp. 2d 811 (W.D. Mo. 2005); Kane v. Gage Merchandising Services, Inc., 138 F.Supp. 2d 212 (D. Mass. 2001). 12 Hoffman-La Roche Inc v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989). See Titre v. S.W. Bach & Co., 2005 WL (S.D. Fla. 2005); Hammond v. Lowe s Home Centers, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 666 (D.Kan. 2003); Bailey v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1362 (D.Minn. 2002).
7 , broadcasts in media outlets, postings and newspapers. 13 The danger for plaintiffs in allowing a defendant to conduct discovery in a 16(b) collective action prior to seeking initial certification is that the court may proceed directly to the second step of the 16(b) certification process i.e., make a final determination whether certification should be granted. For example, in Hinojos v. Home Depot, Inc., 14 the district court cited the extensive discovery that had been conducted in an off-the-clock FLSA lawsuit as the reason that the court was collapsing the first and second stages of 16(b) certification, and making a final determination as to whether the case should proceed as a collective action. The plaintiffs never had the opportunity to send a Sperling notice to the putative class. Thus, plaintiffs counsel should resist employer attempts at discovery prior to certification as a collective action. In addition to the purpose of the statute of limitations running on the putative class claims, one of the primary purposes of a section 16(b) action is judicial economy and efficiency, which is best served by other affected employees joining a wage action. Indeed, some of these employees may have complimentary state claims which are best litigated along with the FLSA claims. Further, additional plaintiffs in some more difficult to 13 See, Marroquin v. Canales, 236 F.R.D. 257, 262 n.19 (D.Md. 2006) (court approved plaintiffs Notice Plan which included expanded notice); Hodel v. Legacy Health Systems, 121 Lab. Cas. (CCH) para. 35,635 (D. Or. 1992) (plaintiffs were permitted to discover names and addresses of potential collective action members); Riojas v. Seal Produce, 82 F.R.D. 613, 617 (S.D. Tex. 1979) U.S. Dist. Lexis (D. Nev. 2006).See Basco v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. La. 2004)(citing substantial discovery that has occurred, including videotaped depositions of plaintiffs, as reason that court would evaluate certification motion under both the first and second steps at the same time).
8 prove cases, such as some off-the-clock cases involving unrecorded work time, may provide proof of the systemic nature of the violations and strengthen proof of a pattern and practice of unlawful wage and hour violations that have resulted from the employer s policies. B. Certification of Rule 23 State Class Actions Unlike section 16(b) FLSA actions, Rule 23 class actions do not involve a two step process. Rather, the plaintiffs engage in discovery on the certification question and then move for certification. Once the court grants certification, the class is rarely decertified. Much of the discovery that occurs after initial certification of a collective action and the discovery being conducted on whether a class should be certified is the same. This is because to avoid decertification on the FLSA claims, the plaintiffs will necessarily need to discover the breadth of the company s violations and whether a similar policy, plan or pattern and practice led to the violations. Of course, this is precisely the type of information that the plaintiffs will need to establish Rule 23 certification of their state law class claims. Thus, the discovery in each is complimentary at this stage of the case. Once the plaintiffs believe that sufficient discovery has been conducted for Rule 23 certification, they can then move for certification, and if the request for class certification is granted, the remaining discovery will proceed on the merits with respect to both the state law and FLSA claims. There is also a risk for plaintiffs who obtain section 16(b) FLSA notice before seeking Rule 23 class certification of state wage claims. Some courts
9 may refuse to certify the class action finding that the plaintiffs cannot prove that joinder is impractical if a large number of FLSA plaintiffs have voluntarily joined the case. 15 Nonetheless, most courts have determined that the state and federal wage laws have different intents with respect to whether employees rights can be vindicated through opt in or opt out mechanisms and will accord full deference to the intent of each statutory mechanism. 16 Some courts have postponed class certification until all discovery on the FLSA claims is complete on the theory that the court should not consider Rule 23 class certification until the court determines whether it will ultimately grant at the second stage and in response to a motion for decertification certification of the FLSA collective action. 17 This seems to be an unnecessary reason to delay class certification and an extremely inefficient way to proceed. The discovery will be largely similar with respect to the collective action and the class action claims and this could lead to repetitive depositions and discovery requests on similar topics. Moreover, this type of delay is contrary to the purposes of class actions to provide an expeditious and efficient method to proceed with respect to litigation of the plaintiffs class claims. 15 See Moeck v. Gray Supply Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 511 (D.N.J. 2006)(limiting state class to FLSA opt-ins);bartleston v. Winnebago, 219 F.R.D. 629 (N.D. Iowa 2003)(same). 16 See, e.g., Sherrill v. Sutherland Global Services, Inc., 487 F.Supp. 2d 344 (W.D.N.Y. 2007); Kurihara v. Best Buy Co., Inc Lexis (N.D.Cal. 2007); Scott v. Aetna Services, Inc., 210 F.R.D. 261 (D. Conn. 2002). 17 Marquez, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 63301; Frank v. Gold n Plum Poultry, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D. Minn. 2005).
10 II. Discovery Strategies Use of Representative Discovery Unlike Rule 23 class actions, FLSA collective actions may subject all of the opt in class members to discovery. Most courts have been resistant to this type of costly and burdensome discovery, and have required representative discovery to be conducted. Nonetheless, in FLSA cases discovery beyond the named plaintiffs may be allowed. Of course, this could result in the discovery of information that harms the opportunity for Rule 23 certification. In Rule 23 discovery, individualized discovery of class members who are not named is strongly disfavored 18 and is allowed only in extremely rare circumstances. Courts often refuse to permit discovery of absent class members because the potential burden on these members will discourage participation and artificially reduce the class size thus inappropriately contravening one of the reasons for class certification under Rule Courts have been receptive to limiting burdensome and oppressive discovery in FLSA actions, despite defendant s arguments that each opt-in is a party plaintiff. The primary considerations in doing so are the number of plaintiffs involved and the stage at which discovery is sought in the case. A. The Number of Plaintiffs Affect Court Determinations as to the Use of Representative Plaintiffs Courts are increasingly analogizing 216(b) collective actions to Rule 23 class cases for discovery purposes, especially if the collective action opt-ins are 18 E.g., Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546 (11 th Cir. 1986); Worlds of Wonder Securities Lit., 1992 WL (N.D. Cal. 1992). 19 E.g., Newberg on Class Actions, Vol. 5, 16.1 (4 th Ed. 2002).
11 numerous. The Supreme Court in Hoffman-La Roche v. Sperling, 20 emphasized 216(b) s advantage of lower individual costs to vindicate rights by the pooling of resources. This assists with the argument to limit discovery in 16(b) cases because Rule 23 discovery is typically confined to named plaintiffs in part to avoid using discovery as a stratagem to reduce the number of claimants. 21 Another reason to allow representative discovery in 16(b) FLSA actions is that it is now well established that the use of representative samples of plaintiffs for trial is generally condoned under the FLSA. 22 As an FLSA treatise comments, U.S. 165, (1989). 21 H. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, (3 rd Ed. 1992). See, e.g., Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 810 n. 2 (1985) ( an absent class action plaintiff is not required to do anything ); Mehl v. Canadian Pac. Railway, 216 F.R.D. 627, (D.N.D. 2003)(denying defendants request to depose class members prior to class certification determination); Baldwin & Flynn v. Nat l Safety Assocs., 149 F.R.D. 598, (N.D. Cal. 1993)(same). 22 Cases allowing representative discovery include: Belcher v. Shoney s, Inc., 30 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1024 (M.D. Tenn. 1998) (use of representative sample of optin plaintiffs in managers exemption case)); Geer v. Challenge Fin. Investors Corp., 2007 WL (D. Kan. May 4, 2007) (refusing to allow defendant to take depositions from all 272 opt-in plaintiffs); Barrus v. Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 2d 224, (W.D.N.Y. 2006)(limiting discover to representative sample); Smith v. Lowes home Ctrs., 236 F.R.D. 354, 356 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (limiting discover to a representative sample); Bradford v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 184 F. Sup. 2d 1342 (N.D. Ga. 2002) 184 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (discovery limited to 25 of 300 plaintiffs); Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351, 354 (D.N.J. 1987) (parties used 51-person sample of class of over 1,300 plaintiffs); Brooks v. Farm Fresh, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 1185, (E.D. Va. 1991), rev s on other grounds sub nom. Shaffer v. Farm Fresh, Inc., 966 F.2d 142 (4 th Cir. 1992) (discover of opt-ins permitted but only to extent a party felt record was adequately developed to address whether or not class was similarly situated. ); McGrath v. City of Philadelphia, No. CIV A , 1994 WL 45162, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (no discovery from opt-in plaintiffs); Adkins v. Mid-Am. Growers, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 466, 468 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (rejecting magistrate judge s order for individualized discover; Whether prior to class certification or after, discovery, except in the rarest of cases, should be conducted on a class wide level. ); Prentice v. Fund for Pub. Interest Research, Inc. WL , at *5 (N.D. Cal.
12 It is well settled that generally not all affected employees must testify in order to prove violations or to recoup back wages. Rather, in most cases, employees and the Secretary may rely on representative testimony. The Fair Labor Standards Act 1333 (Ellen C. Kearns, Ed. 1999). Defense counsel who resist efforts to limit discovery to representative plaintiffs will find that they carry a heavy burden in justifying it. District courts have considerable discretion in determining the scope of discovery and the evidence to be presented at trial under FRCP Rule 26(b), and FRE 403 and 611. Under FRCP Rule 26(B)(2)(III) the defendant s need for discovery and due process rights must be balanced against the probative value of discovery, the need for efficient case management, the amount in controversy, and the parties resources. With these considerations in mind, defense counsel s reasons for individualized discovery may be seen as little more than a defense tactic. For example, in Geer v. Challenge Financial Investors Corp., 23 the court admonished the defendant for seeking to depose all 256 plaintiffs without explaining why no alternative method might be more cost effective such as randomly selecting a smaller number of plaintiffs and then evaluating whether additional discovery is necessary. The court was particularly disturbed that the defendant had not shown any willingness to compromise with plaintiffs, which led the court to question defendant s true intention for its request to depose all of the plaintiffs. Sept. 18, 2007) ( Individualized discovery is rarely appropriate in FLSA collective actions ) U.S. Dist. Lexis (E.D. N.Y. 2007).
13 Similarly, in Smith v. Lowe s Home Centers, Inc., 24 an action brought under the FLSA and Ohio s Minimum Wage Act, the court denied the defendant s request for individualized discovery for the over 1500 plaintiffs. Instead, the court ordered that discovery be limited to a representative, manageable random sample. The court directed the parties to confer and formulate a sampling methodology for discovery purposes. For these reasons, many courts considering discovery requests directed at opt-in plaintiffs have refused to compel responses to discovery requests 25, and, more commonly, limited discovery of opt-ins to a representative sample F.R.D. 354 (S.D.Ohio 2006). 25 Morales-Arcadio v. Shannon Produce Farms, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *11 (S.D. Ga. 2006) 26 See McGrath v. City of Philadelphia, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1495 at *8 (E.D. Penn. 1994) ( It is well-established that individualized discovery is inappropriate in a [FLSA] class action lawsuit); Adkins v. Mid-America Growers Inc., 141 F.R.D. 466, (N.D. Ill. 1992) (individualized discovery of all opt-in plaintiffs is inappropriate in a FLSA collective action, but representative testimony is permissible); Smith v. Lowe s Home Centers, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 354, (S.D. Ohio 2006)(court denied defendant s request for individualized discovery of more than 1,500 opt-ins and instead ordered a representative sample); Bradford v. Bed, Bath & Beyond, 184 F. Supp.2d 1342, 1344 (N.D. Ga. 2002) (limited discovery to a representative sample of opt-ins); Geer v. Challenge Financial Investors Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33499, at *13 (D. Kan. May 4, 2007)(court admonished defendant for seeking depositions of all 256 opt-ins and its failure to compromise with plaintiffs); Krueger v. New York Telephone Co., 163 F.R.D. 446, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)(discovery of opt-ins may be necessary for discovery of common issues, but cannot be undertaken for the purposes or effect of harassment of opt-in plaintiffs); Lusardi v. Xerox Corporation, 118 F.R.D. 351, 354 (D. N.J. 1987) (discovery permitted of 51 of 1,312 opt-ins); Takacs v. Hahn Auto Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22146, at *4-8 (S.D. Ohio 1999) (representative discovery of opt-ins permitted). But see Coldiron v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23610, *5-6 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (individualized discovery of opt-in plaintiffs allowed); Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 297 (D. Me. 2002) (sanctioning plaintiffs for failing to respond to discovery directed at opt-ins).
14 Not surprisingly, courts have permitted discovery of all active opt-ins such as those who submitted affidavits supporting plaintiff s motion for notice in a collective action. See Luna v. DelMonte Fresh Produce Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ga. May 18, 2007) (court permitted discovery for two already-active opt-ins). 27 In most cases, the parties may be able to resolve the issue of the use of representative plaintiffs on their own, and defense counsel may be motivated to do so not only due to cost issues, but also because if the plaintiffs win, defendant will ultimately be liable for the plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs incurred in responding to burdensome discovery The court in Luna also denied defendants motion to compel discovery responses from opt-ins prior to conditional certification of the 216(b) class, saying that the mandatory disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(1) of the FRCP only applied to parties. Id. at * Some defense counsel refuse to agree to representative discovery arguing that they risk appearing to have conceded that the case is manageable for trial and that the plaintiffs are similarly situated.
The American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law National Conference on Equal Employment Law
The American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law National Conference on Equal Employment Law Wage/Hour Jeopardy: Discovery and Proof Issues in Fair Labor Standards Act Cases Molly Elkin
More informationCase 1:07-cv AA Document 25 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:07-cv-00829-AA Document 25 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION NICOLE WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:07-CV-829 on behalf of herself and all
More informationCase: 1:16-cv CAB Doc #: 25 Filed: 07/25/17 1 of 7. PageID #: 253 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:16-cv-02613-CAB Doc #: 25 Filed: 07/25/17 1 of 7. PageID #: 253 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PAULETTE LUSTER, et al., CASE NO. 1:16CV2613 Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:12-cv-1848-T-33TBM ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION LIZETH LYTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action, Plaintiff,
More informationSuccessful FLSA Discovery Practices: Opening the Door to Opt-In Discovery
Westlaw Journal COMPUTER & INTERNET Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 33, ISSUE 26 / JUNE 3, 2016 EXPERT ANALYSIS Successful FLSA Discovery Practices: Opening
More informationCase 2:12-cv EEF-SS Document 47 Filed 02/28/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:12-cv-02177-EEF-SS Document 47 Filed 02/28/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ERIC NDITA * CIVIL ACTION * versus * No. 12-2177 * AMERICAN CARGO ASSURANCE,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION. v. Judge Michael R. Barrett ORDER & OPINION
Engel et al v. Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation et al Doc. 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Karen Susan Engel, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:11cv759
More informationThe Use of Representative Testimony and Bifurcation of Liability and Damages in FLSA. Collective Actions. By James M. Finberg and Peder J Thoreen
The Use of Representative Testimony and Bifurcation of Liability and Damages in FLSA Collective Actions By James M. Finberg and Peder J Thoreen ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law November 8, 2007
More informationPresented by. I. Brief Overview of the Two-Stage Certification Process for FLSA Collective Actions
National Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity Law American Bar Association FLSA Decertification: Be Careful What You Ask For.... March 26, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Presented by J. Derek Braziel 1
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION LIBERTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Defendant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION TONYA RIBBY, etc., -vs- LIBERTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:13 CV 613 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
More informationCase 1:16-cv MAC Document 10 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 35
Case 1:16-cv-00086-MAC Document 10 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION Scarlet Banegas and Odin Campos, On CIVIL ACTION
More informationPlaintiff, : OPINION AND ORDER 04 Civ (LTS) (GWG) -v.- :
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X ANDREW YOUNG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, : Plaintiff,
More informationCLASS ACTION JURY TRIALS
CLASS ACTION JURY TRIALS Going the Distance Emily Harris Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece LLP The Class Action Landscape is Changing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) Class action arbitration
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION JOHNNY BERNAL, on behalf of himself and Others Similarly Situated, VS. Plaintiff, VANKAR ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a BABCOCK BAR,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Medina et al v. Asker et al Doc. 109 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ARMANDO MEDINA, FERNANDO ) ESCOBAR, and CHRISTIAN SALINAS, ) individually
More informationCase 1:16-cv DPG Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2016 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:16-cv-20932-DPG Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2016 Page 1 of 8 ANA CAAMANO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO.: 16-20932-CIV-GAYLES
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER
Case 4:12-cv-00613-GKF-PJC Document 28 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/30/13 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA NANCY CHAPMAN, individually and on behalf of
More informationAMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION. VANESSA BALDWIN Case No RENEE KAHMANN CRYSTAL M. MEJIA
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION VANESSA BALDWIN Case No. 53-160-000071-13 RENEE KAHMANN CRYSTAL M. MEJIA On behalf of each of themselves and all others similarly situated CLAIMANTS, v. FOREVER 21, INC.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Celis Orduna et al v. Champion Drywall, Inc. of Nevada et al., Doc. 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 MODESTA CELIS ORDUNA, et al., v. Plaintiffs, CHAMPION DRYWALL, INC., OF NEVADA, et
More information3:15-cv SEM-TSH # 53 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
3:15-cv-03308-SEM-TSH # 53 Page 1 of 21 E-FILED Friday, 29 September, 2017 12:22:14 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD
More informationCase 2:17-cv EEF-JVM Document 20 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO.
Case 2:17-cv-12609-EEF-JVM Document 20 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DAMIAN HORTON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-12609 GLOBAL STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. v. 1:12-CV-3591-CAP ORDER
Case 1:12-cv-03591-CAP Document 33 Filed 04/05/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION MORRIS BIVINGS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
De Leon, Gabriel et al v. Grade A Construction Inc. Doc. 55 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GABRIEL DE LEON, RAMON PENA, and JOSE LUIS RAMIREZ, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 1:16-cv UU Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2016 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:16-cv-21239-UU Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2016 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA VALDO SULAJ, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-21239-UU Plaintiffs, v. IL
More informationCase: 2:17-cv ALM-CMV Doc #: 35 Filed: 09/17/18 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 765
Case: 2:17-cv-00731-ALM-CMV Doc #: 35 Filed: 09/17/18 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 765 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION NEIL ROSENBOHM, : : Case No. 2:17-cv-731
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Case 1:16-cv-00486-NCT-JEP Document 36 Filed 04/17/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DAVID LINNINS, KIM WOLFINGTON, and CAROL BLACKSTOCK, on behalf of
More informationCase 3:13-cv RBL Document 426 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Case :-cv-0-rbl Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 0 PATRICIA THOMAS, et al, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Plaintiff, KELLOGG COMPANY and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JARED STEGER, DAVID RAMSEY, JOHN CHRISPENS, and MAI HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Case 1:17-cv-03574-RLY-MPB Document 78 Filed 01/02/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JULIA SHUMATE, on behalf of all others
More informationSCOTT EDWARD COLE * AND MATTHEW R. BAINER ** INTRODUCTION
TO CERTIFY OR NOT TO CERTIFY: A CIRCUIT-BY- CIRCUIT PRIMER ON THE VARYING STANDARDS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IN ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL LABOR STANDARDS ACT SCOTT EDWARD COLE * AND MATTHEW R. BAINER **
More informationDiscovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery
More informationFLSA COLLECTIVE ACTIONS - THE PLAINTIFFS PERSPECTIVE
FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTIONS - THE PLAINTIFFS PERSPECTIVE By: David L. Kern* KERN LAW FIRM PC 1300 North El Paso Street El Paso, Texas 79902 915-542-1900 915-242-0000 fax dkern@kernlawfirm.com *Board Certified
More informationCase: 1:16-cv TSB Doc #: 2 Filed: 09/27/16 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 11
Case: 1:16-cv-00935-TSB Doc #: 2 Filed: 09/27/16 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JEREMY HAMM, et al. for himself : and others similarly
More informationCase 1:05-cv WMN Document 86 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:05-cv-00949-WMN Document 86 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BRUCE LEVITT : : v. : Civil No. WMN-05-949 : FAX.COM et al. : MEMORANDUM
More informationCase 1:08-cv JG Document 29 Filed 02/13/2009 Page 1 of 10
Case 108-cv-02791-JG Document 29 Filed 02/13/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------- EUSEBIUS JACKSON on behalf
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION
Harris et al v. Hinds County, Mississippi et al Doc. 33 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION DERIUS HARRIS, RAY MARSHALL, AND FREDERICK MALONE,
More informationCase 2:18-cv BWA-MBN Document 34 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:18-cv-06109-BWA-MBN Document 34 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GUSTAVO FIGUEROA, II CIVIL ACTION Individually and on behalf of other similarly
More informationAPPEALS AND SETTLEMENTS IN WAGE-AND-HOUR CLASS/COLLECTIVE ACTION CASES. Matthew W. Lampe E. Michael Rossman 1
APPEALS AND SETTLEMENTS IN WAGE-AND-HOUR CLASS/COLLECTIVE ACTION CASES Matthew W. Lampe E. Michael Rossman 1 In this country, the payment of overtime is regulated by the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA
More information: : : : : : : : : : x. Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, bring this action, inter
-SMG Yahraes et al v. Restaurant Associates Events Corp. et al Doc. 112 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- x
More informationCase 2:14-cv SHL-tmp Document 95 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID 1518
Case 2:14-cv-02294-SHL-tmp Document 95 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID 1518 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ARVION TAYLOR, on her own behalf
More informationCase 1:17-cv APM Document 38 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:17-cv-01371-APM Document 38 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ISAAC HARRIS, et al., v. MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiffs,
More informationDefending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Davis v. Westgate Planet Hollywood Las Vegas, LLC et al Doc. 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA THOMAS DAVIS III, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. :0-cv-00-RCJ-PAL ) vs. ) ORDER ) WESTGATE
More informationStatistical Evidence in Employment Class Actions After Tyson Foods
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Statistical Evidence in Employment Class Actions After Tyson Foods Disputing or Leveraging Statistical Evidence in Complex Wage and Hour Litigation
More informationCase 6:12-cv Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION
Case 6:12-cv-02427 Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION OPELOUSAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY A PUBLIC TRUST,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO GAO
Case 1:08-cv-10730-GAO Document 136 Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-10730-GAO JOSEPH TRAVERS, LAWRENCE McCARTY, RANDOLPH TRIM, EZEQUIAS
More information163 F.R.D. 446 United States District Court, S.D. New York.
163 F.R.D. 446 United States District Court, S.D. New York. Evelyn KRUEGER, Francis J. Lupardo, Carlyle D. Forde, Walter Grabowski, Nicholas T. Bruck, and Albert J. Dwyer on Behalf of Themselves and All
More informationHistorically, ERISA disability benefit claim litigation has included a number of procedural
Nolan v. Heald College The Diminishing Role of Rule 56 in ERISA Disability Benefits Litigation By Horace W. Green and C. Mark Humbert Historically, ERISA disability benefit claim litigation has included
More informationWEBINAR February 11, 2016
WEBINAR February 11, 2016 Looking Forward and Back: How the Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Are Impacting New and Pre-Existing Lawsuits SPEAKERS: Gray T. Culbreath, Esq. Gallivan, White
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION. v. C.A. NO. C
Gonzalez v. City of Three Rivers Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION LINO GONZALEZ v. C.A. NO. C-12-045 CITY OF THREE RIVERS OPINION GRANTING
More informationCase 1:16-cv SHR Document 49 Filed 09/25/18 Page 1 of 16
Case 116-cv-01221-SHR Document 49 Filed 09/25/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JODY FINEFROCK and JULIA FRANCIS, individually and on behalf of
More informationEmerging Issues In Wage & Hour Class Actions: FLSA, Rule 23 and Hybrids
Emerging Issues In Wage & Hour Class Actions: FLSA, Rule 23 and Hybrids Lisa A. Lee Schreter and Christopher J. Harris 1 Littler Mendelson P.C. I. Introduction Recent statistics show that Fair Labor Standards
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:16-cv-13942-NGE-SDD Doc # 11 Filed 12/30/16 Pg 1 of 25 Pg ID 73 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRENDA ANDERSON, individually, and on behalf of others
More informationThe Role of Experts in Class Certification in U.S. Antitrust Cases. Stacey Anne Mahoney Bingham McCutchen LLP
The Role of Experts in Class Certification in U.S. Antitrust Cases Stacey Anne Mahoney Bingham McCutchen LLP In the United States, whether you represent Plaintiffs or Defendants in antitrust class actions,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 112-cv-00563-AT Document 79 Filed 06/28/12 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION KURTIS JEWELL, on behalf of himself and all others
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-3266 American Family Mutual Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellee v. Vein Centers for Excellence, Inc. llllllllllllllllllllldefendant
More informationTHE IMPACT OF DUKES ON WAGE AND HOUR COLLECTIVE ACTIONS
THE IMPACT OF DUKES ON WAGE AND HOUR COLLECTIVE ACTIONS ABA SECTION OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMMITTEE MID-WINTER MEETING Las Vegas - March 27-31, 2012 Richard
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-698-T-33MAP ORDER
Palma et al v. Metro PCS Wireless, Inc. Doc. 125 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION KAREN PALMA and HALLIE SELGERT, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-698-T-33MAP METROPCS
More informationA SUMMARY OF THE SHORT, SUMMARY, AND EXPEDITED CIVIL ACTION PROGRAMS AROUND THE COUNTRY
A SUMMARY OF THE SHORT, SUMMARY, AND EXPEDITED CIVIL ACTION PROGRAMS AROUND THE COUNTRY N.D. Cal. Expedited General Order No. 64 2011 Voluntary Absent agreement, limited to 10 interrogatories, 10 requests
More informationPre-Certification Communications with Putative Class Members March 25, 2017
American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law: 2017 Midwinter Meeting of the Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee Introduction Pre-Certification Communications with Putative
More informationCase 1:14-cv JLK Document 152 Filed 03/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9
Case 1:14-cv-02612-JLK Document 152 Filed 03/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Appellate Case: 17-1028 Document: 01019785739 Date Filed: 03/27/2017 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES
More informationRejecting Sexual Advances as Protected Activity: A District Court Split 1
Rejecting Sexual Advances as Protected Activity: A District Court Split 1 March 5-7, 2009 Litigating Employment Discrimination and Employment-Related Claims And Defenses in Federal and State Courts Scottsdale,
More informationOF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ** GROUP, INC.,
More informationCase 1:08-cv JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-02875-JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, 08 Civ.
More informationLet the Punishment Fit the Crime: Sanctioning Absent Class Members for Failure to Respond to Postcertification Discovery Requests
Fordham Law Review Volume 81 Issue 4 Article 11 2013 Let the Punishment Fit the Crime: Sanctioning Absent Class Members for Failure to Respond to Postcertification Discovery Requests Elizabeth A. Kalenik
More information231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. 1 Definition No. 5 provides that identify when used in regard to a communication includes providing the substance of the communication.
More informationCase 6:09-cv GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714
Case 6:09-cv-01002-GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex. rel. and ELIN BAKLID-KUNZ,
More informationYou Can't Opt-Out of the Federal Rules: Why Rule 23 Certification Standards Should Apply to Opt-In Collective Actions under the FLSA
You Can't Opt-Out of the Federal Rules: Why Rule 23 Certification Standards Should Apply to Opt-In Collective Actions under the FLSA By Allan G. King, Lisa A. Schreter, and Carole F. Wilder SUMMARY Nearly
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 In re: AutoZone, Inc., Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation / No.: :0-md-0-CRB Hon. Charles R. Breyer ORDER DENYING
More informationAvoiding the Deposition Debacle: Tips for Successfully Taking and Defending the Insurer s Corporate Deposition
Avoiding the Deposition Debacle: Tips for Successfully Taking and Defending the Insurer s Corporate Deposition Joan M. Cotkin Nossman LLP Christopher C. Frost Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C. Darren Teshima
More informationDISCOVERY OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE EXPERT WITNESS
DISCOVERY OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE EXPERT WITNESS Written by: J. SCOTT TARBUTTON, ESQUIRE COZEN O CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Ph: (215) 665-2000 Fax: (215) 665-2013 starbutton@cozen.com
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LEOPOLDO TENORIO JIMENEZ, ISRAEL TENORIO, and HERMELINDA LEYVA DE TENORIO, v. Plaintiffs, LAKESIDE PIC-N-PAC, L.L.C.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendant.
Case :-cv-0-bas-jlb Document 0 Filed /0/ Page of 0 0 ROBERT STEVENS and STEVEN VANDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CORELOGIC, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN
More informationCase 5:18-cv TES Document 204 Filed 04/15/19 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
Case 5:18-cv-00388-TES Document 204 Filed 04/15/19 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION VC MACON GA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 5:18-cv-00388-TES
More informationCase 9:15-cv KAM Document 167 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2017 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:15-cv-81386-KAM Document 167 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2017 Page 1 of 10 ALEX JACOBS, Plaintiff, vs. QUICKEN LOANS, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN
More informationCase 2:12-cv EEF-SS Document 42 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. Defendants.
Case 2:12-cv-02177-EEF-SS Document 42 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ERIC NDITA, both individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Plaintiffs, Defendants.
Nance v. May Trucking Company et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 SCOTT NANCE and FREDERICK FREEDMAN, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and
More informationSummary Judgment Motions in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions: Pre- and Post-Certification Strategies
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Summary Judgment Motions in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions: Pre- and Post-Certification Strategies Leveraging Summary Judgment Motions
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL
Christina Avalos v Medtronic Inc et al Doc. 24 Title Christina Avalos v. Medtronic, Inc., et al. Page 1 of 5 Present: The Honorable KANE TIEN Deputy Clerk DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NOT
More informationWal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes: The Supreme Court Reins In Expansive Class Actions
July 18, 2011 Practice Group: Mortgage Banking & Consumer Financial Products Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes: The Supreme Court Reins In Expansive Class Actions The United States Supreme Court s decision
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
1 1 1 1 0 1 ELIZABETH BARKER and YADIRA ESQUEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. U.S. BANCORP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendants.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO: CHET MORRISON CONTRACTORS, LLC ORDER AND REASONS
Parson v. Chet Morrison Contractors, LLC Doc. 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHARLES H. PARSON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 12-0037 CHET MORRISON CONTRACTORS, LLC SECTION: R ORDER
More informationCase 3:13-cv RBL Document 280 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA I.
Case :-cv-0-rbl Document 0 Filed 0// Page of HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 0 PATTY THOMAS, et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CASE NO. C- RBL Plaintiffs, v. KELLOGG
More informationExpert Discovery: Does a Testifying Expert s Consideration of Attorney Work Product Vitiate the Attorney Work-Product Privilege?
Expert Discovery: Does a Testifying Expert s Consideration of Attorney Work Product Vitiate the Attorney Work-Product Privilege? 21 by Daniel L. Russo, Jr. and Robert Iscaro As high-stakes, complex litigation
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761
Case: 1:13-cv-01524 Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BRIAN LUCAS, ARONZO DAVIS, and NORMAN GREEN, on
More informationCase 5:17-cv JGB-KK Document 17 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:225
Case 5:17-cv-00867-JGB-KK Document 17 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:225 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. EDCV 17-867 JGB (KKx) Date June 22, 2017 Title Belen
More informationA Primer on 30(b)(6) Depositions
A Primer on 30(b)(6) Depositions A Defense Perspective David L. Johnson Kyle Young MILLER & MARTIN PLLC Nashville, Tennessee dljohnson@millermartin.com kyoung@millermartin.com At first blush, selecting
More informationOvercoming FLSA Collective Action Discovery Challenges Before and After Conditional Certification of Opt-In Class
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Overcoming FLSA Collective Action Discovery Challenges Before and After Conditional Certification of Opt-In Class WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
More informationCase 2:12-cv JD Document 50 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:12-cv-03783-JD Document 50 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHERIE LEATHERMAN, both : CIVIL ACTION individually and as the
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv-00540-MOC-DSC LUANNA SCOTT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION CYNDEE GARDNER, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 09-6082-CV-SJ-GAF ROCKWOOL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAVID DESPOT, v. Plaintiff, THE BALTIMORE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE BALTIMORE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES, GOOGLE INC., MICROSOFT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No CIV-ROSENBAUM
Rojas v. Garda CL Southeast, Inc. Doc. 48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 13-23173-CIV-ROSENBAUM ARTURO ROJAS, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated,
More informationCase 2:16-cv ES-SCM Document 78 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 681 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 216-cv-00753-ES-SCM Document 78 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID 681 Not for Publication UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NORMAN WALSH, on behalf of himself and others similarly
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Sittner v. Country Club Inc et al Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION CANDACE SITTNER, on behalf of ) herself and all others similarly situated,
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU August 21,2014
Page 1 of 5 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU August 21,2014 In the Matter of PHH CORPORATION, PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, PHH HOME
More informationCase 2:16-cv MPK Document 42 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-00525-MPK Document 42 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THEODORE WILLIAMS, DENNIS MCLAUGHLIN, JR., CHARLES CRAIG, CHARLES
More informationApplying Heimeshoff to Plans Contractual Limitations By J.S. Chris Christie, Jr.
2015 Applying Heimeshoff to Plans Contractual Limitations By J.S. Chris Christie, Jr. In Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 134 S. Ct. 604 (2013), the Supreme Court held that an ERISA plan s
More informationTHE FEDERAL COURTS LAW REVIEW
(Do Not Delete) THE FEDERAL COURTS LAW REVIEW Volume 5, Issue 1 2011 You Can t Opt Out of the Federal Rules: Why Rule 23 Certification Standards Should Apply to Opt-In Collective Actions under the FLSA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT
Case: 1:09-cv-03039 Document #: 94 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:953 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT SARA LEE CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff,
More information