Rosales v. El Michoacana LLC

Filing 30

ORDER re 28 Notice (Other) filed by Gabriela Rosales. Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Proposed Class Notice [28-1] is APPROVED. Joint Motion for Approval of Proposed Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b) is GRANTED. The Notice (Doc. 2 8-1) shall be provided accordingly: a.Beginning on July 3, 2017, Plaintiff shall be responsible for sending the approved Notice to all potential collective members by first class mail. b. All opt-in collective members are required to return the conse nt form to Plaintiff's counsel with a postmark date no later than September 1, 2017. c.Plaintiff's counsel shall furnish a copy of all consents received to defense counsel and maintain the originals. d. Plaintiff's counsel shall file one pleading identifying each opt-in collective member and his or her address by September 11, 2017. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 4/5/2017. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GABRIELA ROSALES, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-00711-SPC-CM

EL MICHOACANO, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, d/b/a EL
TARASCO MEXICAN
RESTAURANT,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff Gabriela Rosales’ Filing
of Proposed Class Notice (Doc. 28), and the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Issuance of
Notice. (Doc. 29).
This case involves minimum wage and overtime wage claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq. Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of
herself and similarly situated individuals against Defendant, the owner and operator of a
Cape Coral, Florida restaurant. (Doc. 1). The Court conditionally certified Plaintiff’s FLSA
Collective Action and directed the parties to file a Joint Notice to Potential Class Members
(Doc. 27). Plaintiff has since submitted a proposed Notice (Doc. 28), and Defendant has

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not
endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that
a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

made no objections. Upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Notice consistent with prior
guidance, and hereby approves Plaintiff’s Notice.
The issues facing the Court, however, do not end there. After the Plaintiffs filed
their Motion for Conditional Certification, but before the Court issued a ruling, the
Department of Labor (“DOL”) initiated its own suit against the Defendants in the Middle
District of Florida. See Hugler v. El Michoacano, LLC et al., 2:16-cv-526-ftM-99MRM.
Importantly, that case involves the same class of employees as the instant matter, and
settlement negotiations are now ongoing. (Doc. 29 at ¶ 9). As a result, the parties have
now jointly moved for a ninety (“90”) day stay on issuing the Notice so that they may
continue discussions and possibly reach a resolution in both cases. (Doc. 29 at ¶ 11).
“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its
power to control its own docket.” Lopez v. Miami-Dade Cty., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1206, 1208
(S.D. Fla. 2015) (quoting Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997)). In deciding, the
court considers whether the stay would cause “prejudice to the non-moving party, whether
the requested stay would simplify and clarify the issues, and whether the potential stay
would reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.” Mackiewicz v.
Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 615CV465ORL18GJK, 2015 WL 11983233, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
Nov. 10, 2015)
Here, the Court finds the 90-day stay warranted. As indicated by the parties and
as far as the Court can discern, the stay will not result in prejudice toward either the
Plaintiffs or the Defendants. The eligible opt-in parties in this case are also covered in
the case brought by the DOL. Additionally, the Court agrees with the parties in finding

that the stay will prevent any potential conflict of interests, which may, in turn, lead to a
speedier resolution on all fronts.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Proposed Class Notice (Doc. 28-1) is APPROVED.
2. Joint Motion for Approval of Proposed Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b) is
GRANTED. The Notice (Doc. 28-1) shall be provided accordingly:
a. Beginning on July 3, 2017, Plaintiff shall be responsible for sending the
approved Notice to all potential collective members by first class mail.
b. All opt-in collective members are required to return the consent form to
Plaintiff’s counsel with a postmark date no later than September 1, 2017.
c. Plaintiff’s counsel shall furnish a copy of all consents received to defense
counsel and maintain the originals.
d. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file one pleading identifying each opt-in collective
member and his or her address by September 11, 2017.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 4th day of April, 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record.