Chano et al v. City of Corpus Christi

Filing 110

ORDER ADOPTING, AS MODIFIED, MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION re: 104 Joint MOTION Approve SettlementSecond MOTION for Settlement, 108 Memorandum and Recommendations, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE terminating 104 Joint MOTION Approve SettlementSecond MOTION for Settlement ( Show Cause Hearing set for 11/14/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos)(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
SANTIAGO CHANO, et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
Defendant.

ENTERED
September 06, 2019
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-141
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING, AS MODIFIED, MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Santiago Chano, Alex Elizondo, Mario de La Garza, and Juan G. Garza, individually,
and on Behalf of Similarly Situated Individuals, brought this action against the City of
Corpus Christi (the City), alleging violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act for
unpaid overtime wages. Before the Court is the parties’ Second Amended Joint Motion to
Approve Settlement. DE 104. On July 11, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his
Memorandum and Recommendation to Approve Settlement (M&R). DE 108. The City filed
an objection on July 25, 2019. D.E. 109.
The City only objects to the M&R’s finding of fact regarding the differing settlement
amounts between named Plaintiffs and consent Plaintiffs. In reviewing whether the terms of
the settlement are fair and reasonable, the M&R states that named Plaintiffs received a higher
settlement amount in part because they had higher rates of pay as foremen. The City
disputes this, arguing that two consent Plaintiffs also held the title of foreman.
Rather, the disparity of the settlement amounts is due in part to the fact that only
named Plaintiffs assert state law claims of declaratory judgment, breach of contract, quantum
meruit, promissory estoppel, common law debt, and Texas Payday Law violations (D.E. 104,
p. 4). Had Plaintiffs prevailed, the named Plaintiffs would have received higher damages for
1/2

their state claims. Therefore, the Court SUSTAINS the City’s sole objection and MODIFIES
the finding of fact in the M&R by replacing “each of the named Plaintiffs was a foreman
who received a higher rate of pay than the consent Plaintiffs” (D.E. 108, p. 7) with “only
named Plaintiffs have asserted state law claims.”
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set
forth in the Magistrate Judge's M&R, as well as the City's objection, and all other relevant
documents in the record, and having made a de novo disposition of the portions of the
Magistrate Judge's M&R to which the objection was specifically directed, the Court
SUSTAINS the objection, MODIFIES the findings of fact as set forth above, and ADOPTS
as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge (D.E. 108). Accordingly, the
Second Amended Joint Motion to Approve Settlement (D.E. 104) is GRANTED. The parties
are ORDERED to file with this Court, on or before November 12, 2019, appropriate
dismissal documents disposing of this action. Should the parties fail to timely file such
documents with this Court, they are ORDERED to appear before this Court on November
14, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. to explain why they have failed to comply with this Order.
ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2019.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2