Veliz v. Cintas Corporation

Full title: PAUL VELIZ, et al, On behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California, (Oakland Division)

Date published: Jun 6, 2007

Case No. C-03-01180 (SBA) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2007)

Opinion

Case No. C-03-01180 (SBA).

June 6, 2007

[E-FILING]

SAUNDRA ARMSTRONG, District Judge

CLASS ACTION ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b)

Defendant Cintas Corporation ("Cintas") has moved this Court for entry of judgment against certain plaintiffs, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Cintas' counsel has confirmed that the Court's docket reflects that no opposition to this motion has been filed. Cintas' counsel further confirmed that no paper related to this motion has been received by Cintas' counsel.

Having considered the papers presented, and the argument of counsel, for the reasons more fully set forth herein, the Court hereby GRANTS Cintas' Motion.

A. Relief Requested By Cintas' Motion

By this Motion, Cintas seeks an Order granting entry of final judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), as to the following individual plaintiffs against whom this Court has entered an order completely disposing of their claims against Cintas in this matter, either by granting summary judgment against the individual by its order of April 17, 2007 [Docket No. 631]) or by granting Cintas' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). NAME Basis For Disposition of Claims

James Lee Barnard Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Todd Bates Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Mark Bernard Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Leon Bipat Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Denise Cecile Blackford Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Henry L. Boone Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Dustin Brandis Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Christopher D. Brown Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Reginal Crosby Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Roger E. Czekaj Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Todd Davis Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Michael Delossantos Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Danny R. Ellisor Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Stephen Shane Fletcher Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Steven L. Fox Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Thomas S. Frankowski Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Chris Franks Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Lloyd V. Fudge Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Jim Garman Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Robert H. Gilmore Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Douglas E. Goree Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Laureano Guajardo, Sr. Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Robert S. Hendrick Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Clarence Holloway Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Anthony Hopper Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Richard Huber Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Jason A. Isherwood Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Sol E. Jaffee Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Mitchell Jessup Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) David Jeter Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Bobby Jones Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Arthur Joseph Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Steven Klocek Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Robert R. Kramer Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Nathan A. Kuethe Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Theodis R. Lee Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Vincent J. Leggio Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Ewell Farley Lester, Jr. Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Noel Lloyd Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Russell Long Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Edgar A. Lugo II Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Gregory William Machala Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Paul Viray Mallari Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Richard Dean Massey Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Jeffrey Scott Mayton Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Garland McAnally III Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Michael McNail Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Jose Medina Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) John F. Meyer Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Linn Allen Minnick Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Ron Molo Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Timothy Monahan Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) David Moore Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Steven Michael Mullis Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Lind Murray Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Gary T. Newvine Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Brandi Ott Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Jose A. Plascencia Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Sai Pongchit Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Keith R. Reaves Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Mark Rios Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Kevin Roam Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Jeffrey J. Schwall Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Lorenzo J. Serrano Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Marvin S. Sherman Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Jerome Shropshire Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Ronald Lynne Smith Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Roger W. Smith, Jr. Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Kevin L. Stumpf Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Johnny C. Terrell Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) William Gregory Thrash Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Ryan Urdiales Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Ryal Van Williams II Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Pedro Velazquez Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Paul Walsh Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Leslie D. Whitlock Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Cory A. Whitlow Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Brian Whitman Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Richard A. Whitted Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Gary Lynn Wiant Rule 41(b) Motion Pending Roland K. Wilson Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Robert S. Wooten Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Scott Worful Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) Matthew Zoankowski Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) B. Short Statement Of Rationale Of The Decision And Citations To Authority As To The Relief Requested

1. Introduction and Legal Standard

This motion comes as the next sequential step in an orderly process to narrow the individuals participating in this action involving claims by Plaintiffs that Cintas wrongfully characterized them as "exempt" and did not pay them overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). In January 2007, the Court issued an order confirming that Cintas' Requests for Admissions were admitted by operation of law, by all nonresponding plaintiffs. [Dkt. No. 594]. The court subsequently granted summary judgment against 58 of the individual nonresponding plaintiffs [Dkt. No. 631], and also granted Plaintiff counsels' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record as to 81 nonresponding plaintiffs. [Dkt No. 580] The Court has also granted Cintas' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute the remaining nonresponding plaintiffs against whom summary judgment had not been granted.

Cintas now seeks entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) as to the 58 individuals against whom the Court entered summary judgment on April 3, 2007 and as to those individual plaintiffs being dismissed for failure to prosecute.

This motion for entry of final judgment is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), which states, in relevant part:

. . . . [W]hen multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the . . . parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. . . .

The discretion of the Court whether to direct the entry of a final judgment under Rule 54(b) "is to be exercised `in the interest of sound judicial administration.'" Curtiss-Wright v. General Electric, 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) quoting Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 437 (1956).

2. Applicable Considerations Weigh Strongly in Favor of Directing the Entry of Final Judgment Under Rule 54(b).

The present situation falls squarely within the rule. Cintas is only moving for entry of judgment against those plaintiffs listed herein, all of whom have had an ultimate disposition of their only claim in this matter, either pursuant to summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 or by dismissal upon the merits pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Under the present facts and circumstances, there is no just reason to delay issuing a final judgment as to all of these individual plaintiffs. To the contrary, there is every just and practical reason to promptly issue the final judgment as to these individuals.

Specifically, the Court observes that the individual plaintiffs at issue herein have ignored obligations to participate in this matter since opting into this action as plaintiffs. They failed to respond to discovery requests despite having four extensions and a clear warning from the Court that their failure to respond "might effectively dismiss certain opt-in plaintiffs." [Dkt. No. 556]. As a result of their nonresponse, claim-dispositive orders have been entered against these plaintiffs either because of their refusal to prosecute this action or because their admissions substantively disposed of their claim.

Both equity and principles of sound judicial administration dictate that there is no reason to delay entry of final judgment. By refusing to respond to discovery and this Court's Orders, these plaintiffs have separated themselves from the other litigating plaintiffs. Given the opportunity to speak up and prosecute their claims, they have failed to do so. Delaying entry of final judgment will just tend to mislead a nonresponding plaintiff to think that he or she has additional time before trial to try to reverse the effect of past neglect. Cintas is prejudiced by the possibility that one or more of these nonresponding plaintiffs might attempt to reappear at a later date.

C. Conclusion

This Court having found that it has issued final judgments against the plaintiffs listed above, and having determined that there is no just reason for delay, taking into consideration appropriate principles of equity and judicial administration, hereby GRANTS Cintas' motion and further hereby expressly directs that final judgment be entered as to the plaintiffs listed above . . .

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Agnes A. Gacayan, am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is One Maritime Plaza, Third Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-3492.

On June 7, 2007, I served the foregoing document described as:

SUBMISSION OF REVISED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) VIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE ON THE PARTIES AS SET FORTH IN THE RECORDS OF THE COURT AS OF THIS DATE.

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on June 7, 2007, at San Francisco, California.