From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez v. Avatar Properties, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Nov 6, 2008
Case No. 6:07-cv-792-Orl-28DAB (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2008)

Summary

finding that the parties had "put the proverbial cart before the horse in settling all claims, before the representative plaintiff ha[d] any indication as to exactly what those claims [were] and how many others he [would] actually represent"

Summary of this case from Christeson v. Amazon.Com.KSDC, LLC

Opinion

Case No. 6:07-cv-792-Orl-28DAB.

November 6, 2008


ORDER


This case is before the Court on Joint Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action and Permission to Send Court Supervised Notice of Opt-In Right Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) (Doc. No. 47) filed June 23, 2008. The United States Magistrate Judge has submitted a report recommending that the motion be denied.

After an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, consideration of Plaintiff's objections (Doc. 52), and argument of counsel at the hearing on October 30, 2008, the Court agrees entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Report and Recommendation filed July 25, 2008 (Doc. No. 50) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.

2. The Joint Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action and Permission to Send Court Supervised Notice of Opt-In Rights Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) is DENIED.

3. The parties now have three options: 1) submit the settlement for approval as to the named Plaintiff only; 2) abandon the settlement and continue to litigate the merits as to the named Plaintiff only; or 3) abandon the settlement and proceed collectively, as a contested collective action.

4. The Amended Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 62) is DENIED as moot. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida.


Summaries of

Perez v. Avatar Properties, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Nov 6, 2008
Case No. 6:07-cv-792-Orl-28DAB (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2008)

finding that the parties had "put the proverbial cart before the horse in settling all claims, before the representative plaintiff ha[d] any indication as to exactly what those claims [were] and how many others he [would] actually represent"

Summary of this case from Christeson v. Amazon.Com.KSDC, LLC

finding that the parties had "put the proverbial cart before the horse in settling all claims, before the representative plaintiff ha[d] any indication as to exactly what those claims [were] and how many others he [would] actually represent"

Summary of this case from Prim v. Ensign U.S. Drilling, Inc.

In Perez, 2008 WL 4853642, at *2, the court explained that prior to class certification, "the parties ha[ve] three options: 1) submit the settlement for approval as to the named Plaintiff only, 2) abandon the settlement and continue to litigate the merits as to the named Plaintiff only[,] or 3) abandon the settlement and proceed collectively, as a contested collective action."

Summary of this case from Leigh v. Bottling Group, LLC
Case details for

Perez v. Avatar Properties, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HILARIO PEREZ, III AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. AVATAR…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

Date published: Nov 6, 2008

Citations

Case No. 6:07-cv-792-Orl-28DAB (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2008)

Citing Cases

Shepheard v. Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, LLC

And, indeed, other courts have raised concerns about this approach because: (1) approving the settlement for…

Prim v. Ensign U.S. Drilling, Inc.

o opt in to the lawsuit before the motion was filed. See, e.g., Shepheard, 2016 WL 5817074, at *2-3 (denying…