From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Helton v. Factor 5, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Jan 30, 2015
Case No: C 10-04927 SBA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015)

Summary

awarding plaintiffs attorneys' fees for the work spent on the fee motion in FLSA action

Summary of this case from Gary v. Carbon Cycle Ariz. LLC

Opinion


JESSE HELTON; ALISHA PICCIRILLO; CHAD LOWE; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FACTOR 5, INC.; FACTOR 5, LLC; BLUHARVEST, LLC; WHITEHARVEST, LLC; JULIAN EGGEBRECHT; HOLGER SCHMIDT; THOMAS ENGEL; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. No. C 10-04927 SBA Docket No. 210, 222 United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. January 30, 2015

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.

On September 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney Fees' and Costs Under the FLSA. Dkt. 210. On September 18, 2014, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ("the Magistrate") for a Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 213. On January 13, 2015, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommends granting Plaintiffs' motion and awarding $113,120.00 in attorneys' fees and $15,366.75 in costs. Dkt. 222.

Any objections to the report and recommendation of a Magistrate judge must be filed within fourteen days of receipt thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The deadline to object to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation was January 27, 2015. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To date, no objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed. In the absence of a timely objection, the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ("The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if [an] objection is made, but not otherwise.") (en banc). The Court has reviewed the record on its face and finds no clear error. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 222) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. This Order terminates Docket 210 and Docket 222.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Helton v. Factor 5, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Jan 30, 2015
Case No: C 10-04927 SBA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015)

awarding plaintiffs attorneys' fees for the work spent on the fee motion in FLSA action

Summary of this case from Gary v. Carbon Cycle Ariz. LLC
Case details for

Helton v. Factor 5, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JESSE HELTON; ALISHA PICCIRILLO; CHAD LOWE; individuallyand on behalf of…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Date published: Jan 30, 2015

Citations

Case No: C 10-04927 SBA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015)

Citing Cases

Gary v. Carbon Cycle Ariz. LLC

Indeed, courts within the Ninth Circuit have awarded attorneys' fees to prevailing plaintiffs in FLSA actions…

Callahan v. City of Sanger

Such an award is mandatory where an employee prevails under the FLSA. See, e.g., Helton v. Factor 5, Inc.,…