Puerta v. RJN Partners, LLC et al

Filing 48

ORDER: denying without prejudice 35 Motion for Leave to Join Luz A. Rael As Party Plaintiff; denying without prejudice 40 Motion for Leave to Join Richard Bulik As Party Plaintiff; denying without prejudice 45 Motion for Leave to Join Drew Dickerson As Party Plaintiff. Status Report due by 9/19/2011, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/9/11.(bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02162-WJM-BNB
BRIAN PUERTA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RJN PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a Express Inn,
BARRY TIGGEMANN, and
NAM TIGGEMAN,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the following:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Join Luz A. Rael As Party Plaintiff [Doc. # 35,

filed 8/5/2011] (the “Motion to Join: Rael”);
(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Join Richard Bulik As Party Plaintiff [Doc. #

40, filed 8/12/2011] (the “Motion to Join: Bulik”); and
(3)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Join Drew Dickerson As Party Plaintiff [Doc.

# 45, filed 8/30/2011] (the “Motion to Join: Dickerson”).
I held a hearing on the motions this afternoon and made rulings on the record, which are
incorporated here.
In general, this purports to be a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Three additional plaintiffs seek to join the action, but the procedure
ordinarily applied in collective actions, as described in Baldozier v. American Family Mutual

Ins. Co., 375 F. Supp 2d 1089 (D. Colo. 2005), and Vaszlavik v. Storage Technology Corp., 175
F.R.D. 672 (D. Colo. 1997), has not been utilized. Among other things, there has been no
motion for conditional certification directed at establishing that the “putative class members
were together the victims of a single decision, policy or plan.” Baldozier, 375 F. Supp. 2d at
1092. In addition, there is no deadline in place for the completion of the opt-in process, in the
event the case is conditionally certified. It appears to me that it is premature to allow plaintiffs
to opt-in to this collective action before it has been conditionally certified.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The Motion to Join: Rael [Doc. # 35]; Motion to Join Bulik [Doc. # 40]; and

Motion to Join Dickerson [Doc. # 45] are denied without prejudice, to be renewed, if at all, after
the issue of conditional certification has been addressed.
(2)

On or before September 19, 2011, the parties shall file a status report addressing

their proposal for the conditional certification process; the procedure to be followed with respect
to opt-in plaintiffs; any amendments to the Scheduling Order which may be necessary; and any
other matters they believe should be addressed in view of this Order.
Dated September 9, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2