Helton v. Factor 5, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Freeman v. Smith

    3:18-cv-00372-SB (D. Or. Jul. 25, 2023)

    (citation omitted); Helton v. Factor 5, Inc., 26 F.Supp.3d 913, 923 n.9 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (noting that good faith “requires more than ignorance of the prevailing law or uncertainty about its development; it requires that an employer first take active steps to ascertain the dictates of the FLSA and then move to comply with them” (citing Reich v. S. New Eng. Telecomms. Corp., 121 F.3d 58, 71 (2d Cir. 1997))).

  2. Carlino v. CHG Med. Staffing, Inc.

    460 F. Supp. 3d 959 (E.D. Cal. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Accordingly, plaintiff argues that the collective is entitled to liquidated damages as a matter of law. Because CHG has proffered no evidence to establish that it had an honest intention to ascertain and follow the dictates of the FLSA, the court concludes that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of CHG's liability for liquidated damages as a matter of law. SeeAlvarez v. IBP, Inc. , 339 F.3d 894, 910 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Where the employer fails to carry that burden ... liquidated damages are mandatory.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff'd, 546 U.S. 21, 126 S.Ct. 514, 163 L.Ed.2d 288 (2005) ; Howell , 401 F.Supp.3d at 1094 (granting summary judgment in plaintiff's favor as to defendant's liability for liquidated damages where defendant did "not ... introduce evidence of its subjective good faith"); Helton v. Factor 5, Inc. , 26 F. Supp. 3d 913, 923 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (same). CHG did argue that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liquidated damages is premature because she has moved for summary judgment as to liability only. (Doc. No. 35 at 21.)

  3. Howell v. Advantage RN, LLC

    401 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (S.D. Cal. 2019)   Cited 6 times
    Granting summary judgment in plaintiff's favor as to defendant's liability for liquidated damages where defendant did "not ... introduce evidence of its subjective good faith"

    Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to liquidated damages under the FLSA. See, e.g. , Helton v. Factor 5, Inc. , 26 F. Supp. 3d 913, 923 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (finding on summary judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to recover liquidated damages where the defendants "did not proffer any evidence establishing that they had an honest intention to ascertain and follow the dictates of the FLSA, and that they had objectively reasonable grounds for believing that their conduct complied with the FLSA"); Nellis v. G.R. Herberger Revocable Tr. , 360 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1045 (D. Ariz. 2005) ("Having failed to produce evidence of an honest intention to comply with the FLSA, the [defendant] fails to establish a triable issue of fact as to liquidated damages."). b. Statute of Limitations

  4. Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.

    Case No. 16-CV-04955-LHK (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Denying a motion to strike Mr. Silverman's testimony where the defendant challenged the testimony for failing to conduct a consumer survey because the court found that a survey was not required, and that Mr. Silverman's opinions were based on his experience and his review of the defendant's own internal consumer research and other documents

    ; Helton v. Factor 5, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 3d 913, 921 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (prohibiting individual defendants from asserting affirmative defense raised for the first time two years and nine months after complaint was amended to add the relevant claims; finding that plaintiffs would be prejudiced because they would have no opportunity to conduct discovery on the issue); Ulin v. Lovell's Antique Gallery, 2010 WL 3768012, at *13 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (prohibiting the defendants from raising FLSA exemption defense at summary judgment; finding that plaintiff would be prejudiced because he could not conduct discovery on the defense); Tyco Thermal Controls LLC v. Redwood Industrials, 2010 WL 1526471, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010) (rejecting plaintiff's attempt to assert innocent landowner defense after three years of litigation during which defendants had no opportunity to conduct discovery on facts that could support or defeat the defense).

  5. Wright v. Old Gringo Inc.

    Case No. 17-cv-1996-BAS-MSB (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Rather, the "prejudice" a plaintiff must identify is procedural in nature, such as a failure or inability to conduct discovery on the defense, or a defendant's "11th hour" assertion of the defense after extensive litigation. See Helton v. Factor 5, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 3d 913, 921 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (prohibiting individual defendants from asserting affirmative defense raised for the first time two years and nine months after complaint was amended to add the relevant claims; finding that plaintiffs would be prejudiced because they would have no opportunity to conduct discovery on the issue); Kaufman v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1193 (D. Nev. 2011) ("We conclude . . . that [the defendant] has waived its statute of limitations defense due to the prejudice [the plaintiff] has suffered in having to confront the defense too late in the time line of the litigation.").

  6. Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc.

    Case No. 15-cv-02277-JST (N.D. Cal. Jul. 9, 2018)

    Hence, there is no dispute of material fact. See Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (non-moving party must "identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment"); see also Helton v. Factor 5, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 3d 913, 922 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ("vague and generalized job descriptions" without specific evidence showing application of overtime exemption failed to sustain defendant's burden to overcome summary judgment). 3. Incident Reports