Opinion
Case No. 2:11-cv-01374-JCM-CWH
07-03-2013
Juan Pablo Orquiza, Maximino Buenaventura, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Walldesign, Inc., Michael Bello, Stephen Huntington, HAND Construction Company, Sterling S Development, Inc., DR Horton, Inc., Ryland Homes Nevada, LLC, Imperial Building Group, Inc., Burke Construction Group, Inc., and Does 1-10., Defendants.
Attorneys for Defendants Walldesign, Inc., Imperial Building Group, Inc., Michael Bello and Stephen Huntington Rachel Wilson, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs Michael V. Van, Esq. Robert A Ryan Esq Attorneys for Defendant Sterling S Development, Inc. Michael E. Stoberski, Esq. Christopher J. Richardson, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Hand Construction Company Suzanne L. Martin, Esq. Christopher M. Pastore, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant D. R. Horton, Inc. and Ryland Homes Nevada, LLC Richard L. Peel, Esq. Michael T Gebhart Esp Attorney for Defendant Burke Construction Group, Inc.
RICK D. ROSKELLEY, ESQ., Bar # 3192
CORY G. WALKER, ESQ., Bar # 12121
LITTLER MENDELSON
Attorneys for Defendants
Walldesign, Inc., Imperial Building Group, Inc., Michael Bello and
Stephen Huntington
JUDGMENT
Having considered all motions, responses and supporting arguments made by the parties regarding Defendants Michael Bello and Stephen Huntington's Motion for Summary Judgment, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. Plaintiffs cannot establish that either Defendant Michael Bello or Stephen Huntington meet the definition of an employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as neither individual a) hired or fired any of the plaintiffs; b) supervised or controlled the work of the plaintiffs; c) set pay rates or method of pay for the plaintiffs; nor d) maintained or oversaw the employment records, applications, time records or payroll records of the plaintiffs.
2. Thus, having found that no issues of material fact exist to sustain the claims against individual defendants Bello and Huntington, their Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
3. Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. Pro. 54(b), the Court, finding no just reason for delay, hereby certifies entry of this order as final judgment on behalf of defendants Bello and Huntington for all claims brought by the Plaintiffs. This order in no way affects the cross-claims asserted by any cross-Defendant against Michael Bello.
IT IS SO ORDERED
_________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of Nevada, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89169. On July 1, 2013, I served the within document(s):
[X] By CM/ECF Filing - Pursuant to FRCP 5(b)(3) and LR 5-4, the above-referenced document was electronically filed and served upon the parties listed below through the Court's Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system:Rachel Wilson, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Michael V. Van, Esq.
Robert A Ryan Esq
Attorneys for Defendant
Sterling S Development, Inc.
Michael E. Stoberski, Esq.
Christopher J. Richardson, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
Hand Construction Company
Suzanne L. Martin, Esq.
Christopher M. Pastore, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
D.R. Horton, Inc. and Ryland Homes Nevada,
LLC
Richard L. Peel, Esq.
Michael T Gebhart Esp
Attorney for Defendant
Burke Construction Group, Inc.
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing and for shipping via overnight delivery service. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service or if an overnight delivery service shipment, deposited in an overnight delivery service pick-up box or office on the same day with postage or fees thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 1, 2013, at Las Vegas, Nevada.
_________________
Erin Melwak