Winkle v. County of Modoc

Filing 16

ORDER RE CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/12/2016 ORDERING 12 Plaintiff Julie Winkle is APPOINTED collective action representative; Plaintiff' counsel, Mastagni Holstedt, APC is APPOINTED counsel for this collective action, subject to the right of members who opt-in to use other counsel; the proposed notice to potential collective action members provided by the parties is APPROVED as fair and accurate, subject to further review upon a request fo r final approval; within 35 days of this Order, Defendant shall distribute the notice, to all current employees who have worked overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits within the same pay period at any time since 6/30/2013 , via the employees' work-issued email addresses; within 50 days of this Order, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with proof of distribution of the notice as set forth above. the parties are ordered to submit a joint status report to this Court detailing their efforts taken to resolve this dispute and the current status of the case within 90 days from the date of this order. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6

DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 204244)
ISAAC S. STEVENS, ESQ. (SBN 251245)
ACE T. TATE, ESQ. (SBN 262015)
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
A Professional Corporation
1912 “I” Street
Sacramento, California 95811
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8

13

MARGARET LONG, ESQ. (SBN 227176)
DAVID A. PRENTICE, ESQ. (SBN 144690)
JASON S. EPPERSON, ESQ. (SBN 201318)
PRENTICE, LONG & EPPERSON, PC
1716 Court Street, Suite B
Redding, California 96001
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

14

Attorneys for Defendant

9
10
11
12

15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18

JULIE WINKLE, et al., on behalf of herself
and all similarly situated individuals,

19
Plaintiffs,
20

v.

21

COUNTY OF MODOC

22

Defendant.

23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-01486-KJM-GGH
[COLLECTIVE ACTION]
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF
FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION AND
NOTIFICATION TO AFFECTED
INDIVIDUALS

24

This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case alleging the underpayment of overtime

25

caused by the unlawful exclusion of certain incentives in the calculation of Plaintiffs’ pay.

26

Pending before this Court is the parties’ stipulation for to conditionally certify this case as a

27

collective action and facilitate a proposed notice procedure pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

28

Plaintiffs seek to notify potential opt-in plaintiffs in accordance with Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v.
ORDER FOR CONDITIONAL
CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION

Winkle v. County of Modoc
Case No. 2:16-cv-01486-KJM-GGH

1
2

Sperling (1989) 493 U.S. 165. As requested by the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

This is a collective action conditionally certified as affecting a group of similarly

3

situated individuals consisting of any and all current or former employees of the County of

4

Modoc who have worked overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits

5

within the same pay period at any time since June 30, 2013.

6

2.

Plaintiff Julie Winkle is appointed collective action representative.

7

3.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Mastagni Holstedt, APC is appointed counsel for this

8
9

collective action, subject to the right of members who opt-in to use other counsel.
4.

The proposed notice to potential collective action members provided by the

10

parties is approved as fair and accurate, subject to further review upon a request for final

11

approval.

12

5.

Within thirty-five (35) days of this Order, Defendant shall distribute the notice,

13

attached hereto, to all current employees who have worked overtime and received cash payments

14

in lieu of health care benefits within the same pay period at any time since June 30, 2013, via the

15

employees’ work-issued email addresses. To simplify this process, Defendant may choose to

16

send notice to all employees’ work-issued email, rather than just those who worked overtime and

17

received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits within the same pay period at any time

18

since June 30, 2013, at its discretion.

19

6.

Within thirty-five (35) days of this Order, Defendant shall distribute the notice to

20

all former employees who have worked overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health

21

care benefits within the same pay period, and where employed by Defendant since June 30,

22

2013, by first class mail to the former employees’ last known mailing address. To simplify this

23

process, Defendant may choose to send notice to all former employees employed since June 30,

24

2013 by first class mail to their last known mailing address, rather than just those who worked

25

overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits within the same pay period at

26

any time since June 10, 2013, at its discretion.

27
28

7.

Within fifty (50) days of this Order, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel

with proof of distribution of the notice as set forth above.
ORDER FOR CONDITIONAL
CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION

Winkle v. County of Modoc
Case No. 2:16-cv-01486-KJM-GGH

1
2

8.

Plaintiff’s pending motion for conditional certification and facilitated notice shall

be removed from calendar and Defendant shall have no duty to respond to the motion.

3

9.

Any deadlines and hearings currently set in this case are hereby vacated, and all

4

proceedings are stayed except the filing of consents to join and the joint status report required

5

below.

6
7
8
9
10
11

10.

The parties shall use informal discovery and early settlement negotiations in an

attempt to resolve this dispute promptly.
11.

The parties are ordered to submit a joint status report to this Court detailing their

efforts taken to resolve this dispute and the current status of the case within ninety (90) days
from the date of this order.
12. In approving the parties’ stipulation, the Court notes that its determination of

12

conditional certification under the FLSA is one of discretion, and the plaintiff’s burden to

13

establish conditional certification is warranted is lenient. Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc., 242

14

F.R.D. 530, 536 (N.D. Cal. 2007). In approving the stipulation, the Court reminds the parties

15

that class settlement and final certification must be approved by this Court, and upon a request

16

for final approval, the court will exercise its duty to independently review a party’s proposal in
full. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 12, 2016.

20
21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER FOR CONDITIONAL
CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION

Winkle v. County of Modoc
Case No. 2:16-cv-01486-KJM-GGH