Davis v. Westgate Planet Hollywood Las Vegas, LLC et al

Filing 480

ORDER Denying 475 Plaintiff's Motion to Excuse. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 477 Defendant's Motion to Compel the Names Plaintiffs to Attend is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/13/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

THOMAS DAVIS III, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WESTGATE PLANET HOLLYWOOD LAS
)
VEGAS, LLC, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:08-cv-00722-RCJ-PAL
ORDER
(Request to Excuse - Dkt. #475)
(Mot to Compel - Dkt. #477)

13
14

Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Request to Excuse Plaintiffs from the May 19, 2011 Settlement

15

Conference (Dkt. #475). The court has considered the request and Defendants Emergency Motion to

16

Compel (Dkt. #477) and Response and Opposition (Dkt. #478) and Response (Dkt. #479).

17

On January 27, 2011, the court entered a written Order (Dkt. #436) scheduling this matter for a

18

settlement conference on May 19, 2011, and requiring the personal appearance of all individual parties.

19

Counsel for Plaintiffs requested, and received, an exception to the personal attendance requirement with

20

respect to the 600 opt-in Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs now seek to excuse the named Plaintiffs from personally

21

appearing at the settlement conference as well, asserting that “for some opt-in Plaintiffs, that would

22

impose an economic hardship by requiring an absence from their employment.” Counsel for Plaintiffs

23

also asserts that their personal attendance would not advance the process of formulating or reaching an

24

acceptable putative class-wide settlement because no class has been certified, and they have no

25

authority to accept or reject the settlement on behalf of the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs.

26

Defendants seek an order compelling the named Plaintiffs to attend the settlement conference

27

arguing this case is scheduled to go to trial July 2011, and that no meaningful settlement conference can

28

be conducted without the presence of the named Plaintiffs. On May 11, 2011, the district judge entered

1

an Order (Dkt. #476) denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify a Rule 23 Class. The named Plaintiffs

2

initiated this lawsuit, and should not be excused from attending the mandatory settlement conference at

3

the eleventh hour “to rob the settlement conference of any real hope of accomplishing its goal.”

4

The court rarely grants requests for an exception to the personal attendance requirement because

5

of the absence of the personal attendance of the named parties, settlement discussions are rarely

6

productive. Counsel for Plaintiffs reasonably requested an exception for the 600 or so opt-in Plaintiffs.

7

However, having elected to file this action, the named Plaintiffs will be required to attend the settlement

8

conference in person. Counsel for Plaintiff has not established good cause to excuse one or more of the

9

named Plaintiffs based on the the unsupported assertion missing a day of work might constitute an

10
11
12
13

economic hardship to the named Plaintiffs. As such,
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion (Dkt. #475) is DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion to
Compel the Named Plaintiffs to Attend (Dkt. #477) is GRANTED.
Dated this 13th day of May, 2011.

14
15
16

___________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2