Greene v. Executive Coach & Carriage

Filing 129

ORDER Denying without Prejudice 65 MOTION for Approval of Notice of Collective Action Under the FLSA, Denying without Prejudice 76 MOTION to Substitute Party Appoint Lead Plaintiff and to Substitute Notice of Collective Action, and Denyin g 116 MOTION for District Judge to Reconsider 113 Order. New Motion for Approval of the notice due within 30 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 2/17/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ROBERT G. GREENE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
EXECUTIVE COACH AND CARRIAGE, a Nevada )
Corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
THOMAS THATCHER SCHEMKES, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, a
)
Nevada Company, doing business as Executive Las
)
Vegas, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC
)
)
Counterclaimant,
)
vs.
)
)
THOMAS THATCHER SCHEMKES, and
)
GREGORY GREEN,
)
)
)
Counterdefendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:09-cv-466-GMN-RJJ
consolidated with:
2:11-cv-355-GMN-RJJ
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Notice of Collective Action Under the
FLSA (ECF No. 65), Plaintiff Robert Greene’s Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and to

Page 1 of 3

1

Substitute Notice of Collective Action (ECF No. 76) and Plaintiff Robert Greene’s Motion to

2

Reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s Order 113 (ECF No. 116).

3
4
5

In addition to the reasons stated at the February 14, 2012 hearing the Court makes the
following determinations.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Notice of Collective Action (ECF 65)

6

because Sharon Preston (counsel who submitted the motion) is no longer counsel for many of the

7

Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases. Ms. Preston did not appear at the hearing to defend her

8

motion and the attorney who did appear to represent Plaintiff at the hearing, Mr. Kuller, prefers

9

to submit his own notice of collective action. As the parties represented that Ms. Preston may no

10

longer be seeking to be involved to the same degree as when the motion was filed, there exists an

11

issue as to whether the notice should include Ms. Preston’s letterhead given the confusion as to

12

her new limited role in the cases. The two counsels who did appear at the hearing indicated a

13

willingness to work together and attempt to submit a new joint proposed notice.

14

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Robert Greene’s Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and to

15

Substitute Notice of Collective Action (ECF No. 76) because there is a pending motion before

16

the Magistrate Judge regarding Mr. Greene’s failure to appear for his deposition. The Court

17

cannot determine at this time if Mr. Greene would make an adequate lead Plaintiff based on the

18

allegations in the pending motion.

19

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Robert Greene’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 116).

20

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Order, the Court does not find that the ruling was clearly

21

erroneous or contrary to law. Local Rule IB 3-1.

22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Notice of Collective

23

Action Under the FLSA (ECF No. 65) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall submit a

24

new motion for approval of the notice within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert Greene’s Motion to Appoint Lead

Page 2 of 3

1

Plaintiff and to Substitute Notice of Collective Action (ECF No. 76) is DENIED without

2

prejudice.

3
4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert Greene’s Motion to Reconsider the
Magistrate Judge’s Order 113 (ECF No. 116) is DENIED.
DATED this 17th day of February, 2012.

6
7
8
9

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3 of 3