Contreras v. TriComm Utility Services LLC, et al
Filing
17
ORDER denying 14 Corrected MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION AND COURT-SUPERVISED NOTICE TO POTENTIAL OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. §216(b) - Plaintiff is DIRECTED to effectuate service on defendants. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 12/22/2015. (Tripp, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:15-CV-576-FL
MIGUEL CONTRERAS, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRICOMM UTILITY SERVICES LLC;
MICHAEL SWEAT; and NICHOLAS
BONEY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of an
opt-in class for purposes of prosecuting a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (DE 15). In addition, plaintiff also moves the court to approve
proposed notice to all potential class members and direct defendants to produce a list of all
employees that fall within plaintiff’s proposed class definition. Plaintiff has submitted his motion
to the court without proof of service of process on defendants, and plaintiff’s motion contains no
indication he has served the same on defendants. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion is
denied without prejudice and plaintiff is directed to serve defendant with process.
COURT’S DISCUSSION
Plaintiff brings this proposed collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages for himself
and other similarly-situated employees of defendant TriComm Utility Services LLC, under FLSA
§ 216(b). See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). He moves the court to conditionally certify a class, approve
notice to potential class members, and, to assist in delivery of that proposed notice, enter an order
directing defendant to produce a list of all current or former employees falling into his proposed
class definition.
Plaintiff has not filed on the docket a return evidencing service of process on defendants.
Moreover, plaintiff fails to indicate that he has served the instant motion on defendants. Those
failure preclude decision on plaintiff’s motion at this time. Defendants are “entitled to submit
proof . . . at the [conditional certification] phase in an attempt to rebut plaintiff[’s] assertions that
members of the proposed class are similarly situated.” 1 McLaughlin on Class Actions § 2:16 (12th
ed.). Plaintiff’s failure to serve defendants with the motion both deprives them of any opportunity
to respond and precludes their ability to submit proof in opposition to plaintiff’s proposed class
definition. Moreover, without valid service of process the court is without jurisdiction to grant
plaintiff his requested order compelling defendants to disclose a list of employees falling into
plaintiff’s proposed class definition. See Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Bldg. Sys., Inc., 733 F.2d
1087, 1089 (4th Cir. 1984).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for conditional class certification, approval of
notice, and an order directing defendant to disclose a list of employees falling into plaintiff’s
proposed class definition (DE 15), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is DIRECTED
to effectuate service on defendants.
SO ORDERED, this the 22nd day of December, 2015.
_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge
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?