Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00297/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00297-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:1938 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD REES, et.al, CASE NO. CV-F-05-00297 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER, SUA SPONTE, ON MOTION FOR

FACILITATION OF NOTICE TO CLASS 

vs. MEMBERS (Doc. 22)

SOUZA’S MILK TRANSPORTATION, 

CO., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Pursuant to a notice filed on February 7, 2006, plaintiffs Richard Rees and Robert Winters

brought a motion to facilitate notice to potential class members. Defendant Souza’s Milk

Transportation, Co. filed an opposition on February 21, 2006. On March 22, 2006, this Court denied

the motion without prejudice. The Court found that the motion was premature in that the District Court

had not yet ruled on the class certifications. The order stated that the Court would reconsider the motion,

sua sponte, upon the District Court’s ruling. By order on April 24, 2006, the District Court certified two

classes in the above action. Accordingly, based upon the May 4, 2006 request of plaintiffs, the Court

sua sponte reconsiders plaintiffs’ motion, and defendant’s opposition papers, and orders as follows.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case involves claims for unpaid overtime compensation brought by representative plaintiffs

on behalf of other truck drivers. The purported class members claim a violation of the Fair Labor

Standards Action (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 210 et seq., and a claim for relief alleges violation of the

Case 1:05-cv-00297-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

California Unfair Competition law (“UCL”), Cal.Bus.& Prof.Code §17200 et seq.

Plaintiffs moved this Court for certification of two classes on February 7, 2006. The classes

proposed and ultimately certified are:

(1) Collective action under the FLSA:

“All persons who are now employed or have been employed by defendant

in the State of California who, on or after February 28, 2002, to the time

of trial, have worked as a truck driver hauling dairy products from

processing plants to warehouses or retail establishments solely within the

State of California and have worked in excess of forty (40) hours per

week without being paid overtime compensation by Souza for those

excess hours.”

(2) Class action under the UCL:

“All persons who are now employed or have been employed by defendant

in the State of California who, on or after February 28, 2001 to the time

of trial, have worked as a truck driver hauling dairy products from

processing plants to warehouses or retail establishments solely within the

State of California and have worked in excess of forty (40) hours per

week without being paid overtime compensation by defendants for those

excess hours.”

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

This Court has authority to facilitate notice to potential class members. The Supreme Court has

held that court authorization and facilitation of the notice process of such actions, under certain

circumstances, is proper, "if not necessary." Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 110

S.Ct. 482, 486, 107 L.Ed.2d 480 (1989) (approval of court facilitation in ADEA cases). In the instant

case, the parties do not dispute that this Court has authority to facilitate notice to potential class

members. In addition, the parties do not dispute the form or the substance of the notice.

This motion is identical in all material respects to the comparable motion made in the related

case of Willis v. Cal-Western Transport, CV-00-5695, Baganha v. Cal. Milk Transport, CV-01-5729,

Vasquez v. Jim Aartman, Inc., CV-02-5624, and Aguayo v. Oldenkamp, CV-04-6279. The notice is

identical in all major aspects as the notices approved in these related cases. Accordingly, the form and

substance of the notice are approved.

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:05-cv-00297-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for notice to class members is GRANTED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00297-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 05/05/06 Page 3 of 3