Morales et al v. Greater Omaha Packing

Filing 143

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting (119) (8:08cv88) Motion to Certify Class; adopting in their entirety (141) Findings and Recommendation in case 8:08-cv-00161-JFB-TDT and (139) Findings and Recommendation in case 8:08-cv-00088-JFB-TDT ; overruling (141) Objection to Findings and Recommendation in case 8:08-cv-00088-JFB-TDT. Member Cases: 8:08-cv-00088-JFB-TDT, 8:08-cv-00161-JFB-TDTOrdered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA JOSE MORALES, et al., P la i n ti f f s , v. G R EAT ER OMAHA PACKING C O M PAN Y, INC., D e fe n d a n t. GABRIEL SANCHEZ CLAUDIO, et al., P la i n ti f f s , v. G R EAT ER OMAHA PACKING C O M PAN Y, INC., D e fe n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8 :0 8 C V 8 8 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 8:08:CV161 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER T his matter is before the court on the motion of plaintiffs Jose Morales, et al., to certify the class in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Filing No. 119. The plaintiffs filed a brief, Filing No. 120, and an index of evidence, Filing No. 121, in support of the motion. The defendant filed a brief, Filing No. 128, and an index of evidence, Filing No. 129, in opposition to class certification. The plaintiffs filed a brief, Filing No. 132, in reply. This case is consolidated with 8:08CV161. The magistrate judge determined that plaintiffs' motion for class certification should be granted in both cases. Filing No. 139 in 8:08CV88 and Filing No. 141 in 8:08C V161.1 Defendant filed objections to these filings, Filing No. 141, and a brief in support of the objections, Filing No. 142. Defendants for the most part make the same arguments as previously made in its former motions to dismiss. The court has thoroughly reviewed the record, and in particular the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth by the magistrate judge, 1 All references to m o tio n s will be to Case Num b e r 8:08CV88, but the analysis applies to both of these cases. as well as the relevant law. The court finds the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge should be adopted in their entirety. The plaintiffs in both cases are current or former employees of the defendant. They filed this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and under state law alleging violations regarding pay for donning and doffing in connection with their job requirem en ts. Plaintiffs previously filed a motion for conditional class certification which the court granted. See Filing No. 92. The defendant has filed two motions to dismiss which this court denied. Filing Nos. 107 and 137. The court has carefully reviewed the objections of the defendant and finds them without m erit.2 The magistrate judge carefully analyzed the facts and the law. The court agrees with the findings of the magistrate judge in all respects and will adopt his findings and re c o m m e n d a tion s . THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class, Filing No. 119 (8:08CV88), is granted. 2. The magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, Filing No. 139 in 8:08CV88 and Filing No. 141 in 8:08cv161are adopted in their entirety. 3. Defendant's objections, Filing No. 141 (8:08CV88), are overruled. DATED this 17 th day of March, 2010. BY THE COURT: s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Chief District Judge The court notes that plaintiff has agreed to dism is s a couple of the nam e d plaintiffs, apparently for u s in g nam e s other than their own. However, the m a g is tr a te judge found representation adequate as other p la in tif f s exist to represent the class. This court agrees. In addition, defendant argues that plaintiffs have not m a d e them s e lv e s available for discovery depositions. The court will leave this issue to the m a g is tr a te judge f o r determ in a t io n but suggests that both sides fully cooperate in all required discovery. 2 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?