Conde et al v. 2020 Companies LLC et al

Filing 193

ORDER re #189 Joint Letter on Proposed Notice to Expanded Certified Collective. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 6/22/2017. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2017: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sisS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CARLOS CONDE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

v.

10

OPEN DOOR MARKETING, LLC, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW

Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED
NOTICE TO EXPANDED CERTIFIED
COLLECTIVE
Re: Dkt. No. 189

12
13

On April 27, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion to expand

14

the collective action to include individuals who signed an arbitration agreement, limiting the

15

expansion to individuals in California. (Dkt. No. 178 at 25.) The parties were ordered to meet

16

and confer on an appropriate notice for these individuals. (Id. at 25-26.) On May 19, 2017, the

17

parties stipulated to the form of the notice, but stated that they had disputes regarding the notice

18

process. (Dkt. No. 184 at 3.) The Court directed the parties to submit a joint letter brief on the

19

two remaining disputes. (Dkt. No. 185.)

20

On June 2, 2017, the parties filed their joint letter identifying two disputes. (Dkt. No. 189

21

("Joint Letter").) First, the parties dispute whether Plaintiffs should be required to hire a third

22

party administrator to administer the notice to the expanded collective action. (Id. at 1.) Second,

23

the parties dispute whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to send a reminder notice. (Id.)

24

With respect to the third party administrator, the Court will allow Plaintiffs to send the

25

notice to the expanded collective action, rather than require Plaintiffs to hire an administrator.

26

Courts in this district have permitted the plaintiffs' counsel to send such notices, recognizing that

27

"[o]rdering a third-party administrator will add to Plaintiffs' financial burden." Stanfield v. First

28

NLC Fin. Servs., LLC, No. C 06-3892 SBA, 2006 WL 3190527, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2006);

1

Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1207 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ("Requiring a third-party

2

administrator here would drive up Plaintiffs' costs"). Indeed, the parties in the instant case

3

previously stipulated to having Plaintiffs' counsel issue notice of this action to the original

4

collective action. (See Dkt. No. 107 ¶ 2.)
In allowing Plaintiffs' counsel to send the notice, the Court acknowledges Defendants'

5
6

concerns based on Plaintiffs' prior sending of the unauthorized reminder notice and the alteration

7

of the Court-authorized notice.1 (Joint Letter at 3-4.) For that reason, the Court cautions

8

Plaintiffs that they may not unilaterally alter the notice to the collective action in any way, unless

9

they have obtained approval from Defendants and/or the Court. Failure to comply may result in

10

the Court requiring future notices to be sent by a third-party administrator.
As to the reminder notice, the Court will permit Plaintiffs to send a reminder notice.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Multiple courts in this Circuit have allowed reminder notices to be sent. See Harris v. Vector

13

Mktg. Corp., 716 F. Supp. 2d 835, 847 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (rejecting argument that a reminder

14

would be "harassing," and finding that the sending or a reminder was appropriate "[p]articularly

15

since the FLSA requires an opt-in procedure"); Sanchez v. Sephora USA, Inc., No. 11-cv-3396-

16

SBA, 2012 WL 2945753, at *7 (N.D. Ca. July 18, 2012) (rejecting argument that a reminder

17

notice will be interpreted as encouragement by the Court to join the suit, and authorizing a

18

reminder notice); Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Case No. 13-cv-119-LHK, 2014 WL 587135

19

at *14 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014) (recognizing that "courts commonly approve such reminders").

20

The Court will, however, require that the parties meet and confer and come to an agreement on the

21

form and content of the reminder notice, as well as the timing of when the notice will be sent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: June 22, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
1

28

While the change to the notice to include a link to Docusign was not substantive, Plaintiffs'
unilateral action without prior notice to Defendants or the Court is concerning.
2