Santiago et al v. Amdocs, Inc.

Filing 195

ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER BRIEFING AND RESCHEDULING HEARING TO MARCH 16, 2012 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/23/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

PATRICK SANTIAGO, et al.,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 10-4317 SI

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER
BRIEFING AND RESCHEDULING
HEARING TO MARCH 16, 2012

v.
AMDOCS, INC.,

12

Defendant.

/

13
14

Defendant’s motion to amend the answer is scheduled for a hearing on February 24, 2012. The

15

Court reschedules the hearing to March 16, 2012, and directs further briefing as set forth in this order.

16

Defendant seeks to amend the answer to assert the affirmative defense of release as to unnamed class

17

members, based upon a release contained in severance agreements signed by these class members which

18

broadly releases Amdocs from, inter alia, “all claims arising under federal, state, or local law . . . .”

19

Defendant concedes that notwithstanding this broad release language, “employees cannot waive

20

[or release] the protections of the FLSA . . . .” Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th

21

Cir. 2010). However, defendant asserts that an employee may release his or her ability to join an FLSA

22

collective or class action, and defendant wishes to assert the affirmative defense of release to, inter alia,

23

preclude unnamed class members from joining this action.1

24
1

25
26
27
28

The Court notes that defendant’s papers are contradictory on this point. Defendant’s motion
states that “Given the clear language of the Agreement and the equally clear case law, any unnamed
class member who signed an Agreement is barred from joining or in any way participating in a
collective or class action against Defendant.” Motion at 13:15-18. However, defendant’s reply states
“contrary to Plaintiffs’ contentions, the agreement at issue in this case does not expressly preclude the
employees from joining a class or collective action.” Reply at 13:11-12. Defendant then asserts that
the Agreement “only prohibits recovery from a class or collective action; it does not prohibit
participation in a collective action.” Id. at 13 n. 6.

1

The Court directs the parties to file supplemental briefs on the issue of whether, in light of the

2

language of the FLSA and authority holding that an employee cannot waive the protections of the

3

FLSA, an employee can nevertheless release the right to join an FLSA collective or class action.2 The

4

parties shall file supplemental briefs of no more than ten pages by March 2, 2012, and may file

5

supplemental response briefs of no more than five pages by March 9, 2012. The Court will hold a

6

hearing on defendant’s motion on March 16, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: February 23, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Defendant cites this Court’s decision in Kelly v. City and County of San Francisco, 2008 WL
2662017 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2008), for the proposition that employees can waive their right to bring
collective actions under the FLSA. The Court finds Kelly does not necessarily answer the question
presented here because Kelly is factually inapposite, and the Court believes that this issue would benefit
from fuller briefing.
2