Eddins et al v. Time Warner NY Cable, LLC

Filing 106

ORDER on recommendation on plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. Granting 84 Motion to Certify Class; adopting 104 Report and Recommendations. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 10/6/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02521-RM-MJW
DENA M. CANNON,
JUIANA VAN TUIL, and
SUZANNE BOLDEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TIME WARNER NY CABLE LLC,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ON RECOMMENDATION
ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION (ECF NO. 104)
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States Magistrate Judge’s
“Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and for Court Assisted Notice under
Authority of Sperling v. Hoffman-Laroche, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (DOCKET NO. 84)”
(“Recommendation”) (ECF No. 104) dated September 5, 2014. The Magistrate Judge
recommended that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action (ECF
No. 84) be granted, with modifications. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by this
reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties they had fourteen days after service of the
Recommendation to file any objections. The time permitted for any objections has expired and
no objections to the Recommendation have been filed.

The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, along with relevant parts of the Court file,
and considered the applicable law. The Court concludes the Magistrate Judge’s analysis is
thorough and sound, and there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) Advisory Committee’s Notes (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In the
absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any
standard it deems appropriate.”). However, as the parties agreed that the class period should
extend three (3) years back from the date the Court grants class certification, the Notice shall be
so modified. 1 In addition, the Court notes that it was recommended a third-party administrator
be used for sending notices, receiving opt-in forms, and filing them with the Court, but the
recommended Notice provides for the return of the Consent Forms to Plaintiffs’ counsel and,
accordingly, for counsel to file them with the Court. No party objected. Therefore, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1.

That the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 104), as modified herein,
is ADOPTED as an order of this Court;

2.

That the Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and for Court Assisted
Notice under Authority of Sperling v. Hoffman-LaRoche, 493 U.S. 165 (1989)”
(ECF No. 84) is GRANTED to the extent stated in the Recommendation and as
modified herein;

1

Changes are highlighted in red.

2

Notice to Customer Service Representatives Employed by
Time Warner NY Cable, LLC
This is a Notice to all Customer Service Representatives who were employed by Time Warner
NY Cable, LLC, at their call center at 2221 E. Bijou St., Colorado Springs, Colorado 80909,
between October 6, 2011 and the present.
A lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court, District of Colorado on behalf of
Customer Service Representatives against Time Warner NY Cable, LLC alleging violations of
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and
liquidated (double) damages.
Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid for work done before the start of shift, during shift
breaks, and after the end of shift. Defendant Time Warner NY Cable, LLC denies the allegations
and believes that Customer Service Representatives are and were properly paid under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs are represented by Walker G. Harman, Jr. of The Harman Firm PC, who may be
contacted at [phone]. Defendant is represented by Nathan Chapman of Wargo & French
LLC, who may be contacted at [phone].
If you were employed by Time Warner NY Cable, LLC as a Customer Service Representative
between October 6, 2011 and the present, and you believe you may be due unpaid overtime, you
may join in this action to recover unpaid wages by completing the enclosed Consent Form and
mailing it to:
[Name and Address of Third-Party Administrator]

4

If you are a current employee of Time Warner NY Cable, LLC you may join in the lawsuit in
order to recover unpaid wages and liquidated damages. You are protected by federal law from
any retaliation by Time Warner NY Cable, LLC and your employment will not be affected if you
chose to join in this lawsuit.
You have 90 days from the date this notice is mailed to return the Consent Form to The Harman
Firm PC for filing in this action. The statute of limitations will continue to run, reducing
your claim, until the date the signed Consent Form is received by the Court.
If you choose to join this lawsuit, you will be bound by the judgment and may be impacted by
any settlement of the case. The decisions and agreements made and entered into by Plaintiffs
will be binding on you if you join this lawsuit. If you choose to join this lawsuit, you may be
required to respond to written requests for information and you may be required to produce
documents for use in the lawsuit. You may be required to provide sworn testimony under oath at
depositions, hearings, or trial, and you may be required to travel to Denver, Colorado to do so.
Further, if Plaintiffs lose the lawsuit, you may be required to pay a portion of the costs and
attorneys’ fees incurred by Defendant Time Warner NY Cable, LLC in defending the case.
If you chose to join in the lawsuit you may 1) represent yourself, 2) hire a lawyer of your choice,
or 3) hire The Harman Firm, PC, 1776 Broadway #2030, New York, NY, 10019.
The Harman Firm will provide representation on a contingent fee basis, which means that your
attorneys’ fees will be paid from amounts collected by settlement or judgment and will be
subject to approval by the Court.
THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.
THE COURT HAS TAKEN NO POSITION IN THIS CASE REGARDING THE MERITS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS OR DEFENDANT’S DEFENSES
5