Reyes et al v. Bona 1372, Inc. et al
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is ordered that the Defendants shall provide the Plaintiffs, under oath, with the full names of employees, last known mailing addresses, telephone numbers , email addresses, and dates of employment within 14 days. It is further ordered that the Plaintiffs must attempt to mail the notice 65 and consent forms to all potential class members within 14 days of the receipts of names and addresses of putative members from the Defendants. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 11/3/17. (mrp, )
Case 1:17-cv-00016-MAC-ZJH Document 69 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1373
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JESSICA REYES, et al.
BONA 1372, INC., et al.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-16
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The court referred this case to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, for pretrial management. (Doc. No. 29). The court has received and considered the
report (Doc. No. 64) of the magistrate judge that recommended granting the Plaintiffs’ “Motion
to Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective Action and Send Notice to the Class” (Doc. No. 30)
The Defendants timely filed an objection (Doc. No. 66) to the report and
A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to
which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c) (Supp. IV 2011); FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b)(2)–(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they
object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district
court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on
other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Defendants’ object out of “an abundance of caution” to only one aspect of Judge Hawthorn’s
1 of 2
Case 1:17-cv-00016-MAC-ZJH Document 69 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1374
report: “Defendants object to the Magistrate’s [sic] conclusion that, ‘there is no longer any
apparent dispute about the limitations period.’” (Doc. No. 66, at 1).
The court notes the Defendants have not conceded a willful violation of the FLSA
occurred. The existence of a willful violation would extend the two-year statute of limitations to
three years. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Instead, the magistrate judge’s statement that “there is no
longer any apparent dispute about the limitations period” referenced the parties’ agreement
concerning the appropriate date to be listed in the notice to the class of three years prior to the date
the collective action is certified by the court. The text of the proposed notice recommended by
Judge Hawthorn conforms to the parties’ agreement. (Doc. No. 64, at 1; see also Doc. No. 65,
at 1). In this light, the Defendants’ objection is overruled, but their argument that any alleged
violation of FLSA was not willful still proceeds as an issue of fact.
It is ORDERED that the Defendants’ objection (Doc. No. 66) is OVERRULED. The
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 64) is ADOPTED, and a conditional
FLSA class is certified as of the date this order is signed. It is ORDERED that the Defendants
shall provide the Plaintiffs, under oath, with the full names of employees, last known mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment within fourteen (14)
days. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs must attempt to mail the notice (Doc. No. 65)
and consent forms to all potential class members within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of names
and addresses of putative class members from the Defendants.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 3rd day of November, 2017.
MARCIA A. CRONE
2 of UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?