Valdez v. Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc. et al

Filing 230

ORDER Granting 180 and 181 Motions to Decertify Collective Class and Sever Claims and Granting 200 Motion for Leave to File a supplemental response. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 6/20/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JOSEPH VALDEZ, individually and
)
on behalf of all others similarly situated, )
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COX COMMUNICATIONS LAS
)
VEGAS, INC., VIDEO INTERNET
)
PHONE INSTALLS, INC., QUALITY )
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., SIERRA )
COMMUNICATIONS, CO.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

2:09-CV-01797-PMP-RJJ

ORDER

Before the Court for consideration are Defendant Quality Communications,

17

Inc’s fully briefed Motions to Decertify Collective Class and Sever Claims (Doc.’s

18

#180, #181). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Supplemental

19

Response in Opposition (Doc. # 200). Having considered the arguments of counsel

20

set forth in their papers, and at the hearing conducted on March 28, 2011, the Court

21

finds that Defendant Quality Communications, Inc’s, Motions (Doc.’s #180 & #181)

22

must be granted.

23

After more than 18 months of litigation, Plaintiff has not identified a viable

24

Plaintiff capable of acting as Class Representative in a class action or a collective

25

action against the Subcontractor Defendants. Additionally, the record adduced

26

before the Court suggests that it is highly unlikely that putative Plaintiffs qualified

1

to serve as Class Representatives would be “similarly situated” to each other,

2

because there is no generally applicable policy or procedure employed by the

3

Subcontractor Defendants with respect to overtime pay practices. As a result,

4

Plaintiff is unable to meet the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for maintenance

5

of a collective action. Moreover, because individual determinations would be

6

necessary to resolve the overtime pay claims of potential Plaintiffs, the Court finds a

7

collective action is inappropriate.

8

Having previously concluded that Plaintiff Valdez is not qualified to act as

9

a Class Representative, and there appearing to be no other viable Plaintiff who can

10

do so, this Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this action should be

11

certified conditionally or otherwise as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

12

Of course, such a finding does not preclude Plaintiff Valdez from pursuing his

13

individual claims against each of the Defendants in this action.

14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Quality

15

Communications, Inc’s Motions to Decertify Collective Class and Sever Claims

16

(Doc.’s #180, #181) are GRANTED.

17
18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to File a
Supplemental Response in Opposition (Doc. #200) is GRANTED.

19
20

DATED: June 20, 2011.

21
22
23

PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge

24
25
26

2