Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02675/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02675-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

1

 The other pending motions will be resolved through separate orders.

2

 While the defendants correctly note that the plaintiff’s response was

untimely filed by several days without any request for an extension of time, a

practice of which the Court disapproves, the Court has considered the response

because the minimal delay did not prejudice the defendants and the Court wishes

to resolve the defendants’ motion on its merits.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Armando Flores, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Metro Valley Painting Corporation, et

al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2675-PHX-PGR 

 

 ORDER

Among the motions pending before the Court is the defendants’ Motion to

Strike Consent to Join Forms Filed March 16, 2007 and Clarify the Number of

Joined Plaintiffs (doc. #54).1

 Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the

Court finds that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part.2

This is a collective action filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29

U.S.C. § 216(b), wherein the defendants are alleged to have failed to pay

Case 2:06-cv-02675-PGR Document 98 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 4
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

3

 The defendants also argue that six of the 55 opt-in plaintiffs, i.e. Juan

Campa R., Manuel Campa R., Cesar Perez T., Juan Manuel Ramirez, Emigdio A.

Perez Torres, and Martin Tovar, should be stricken on the separate ground that

their consent to join forms refer to claims against non-party Bean Drywall, Inc. 

Since the plaintiffs concede that the consent forms for these six opt-in plaintiffs

were filed in error in this action, the Court will strike them and dismiss those

persons as opt-in plaintiffs. The Court wishes to note, however, that it finds it to

be inexplicable why the parties’ counsel could not have informally resolved such

an obvious error simply by communicating with each other and stipulating to the

withdrawal of those persons from this action.

- 2 -

overtime wages to various current and former employees. On March 16, 2007,

the plaintiffs filed consent to join forms for 55 opt-in plaintiffs (doc. #21). On

August 35, 2007, the Court entered an order (doc. #35), based on the parties’

stipulation, that set forth the opt-in procedure for “any potential Plaintiff who

wishes to join this lawsuit,” which included a stipulated format for the consent to

join forms.

The defendants now argue that the stipulated order meant that each of

those 55 persons who previously signed consent to join forms had to sign the two

Court-approved consent forms in order to be considered an opt-in plaintiff, and

that since none of those 55 persons did so prior to the conclusion of the opt-in

period, their previous consent forms should be stricken and they should not be

considered to be opt-in plaintiffs.3

 Under the defendants’ view, the only proper

plaintiffs to this action are the remaining named plaintiffs and the three opt-in

plaintiffs who timely and properly filed the Court-approved consent to join forms. 

The plaintiffs argue that it was their understanding that the stipulation, drafted by

the defendants’ counsel, was meant to apply only to persons who opted-in after

the entry of the Court’s order and was not meant to apply to the 55 persons who

had already opted-in.

Case 2:06-cv-02675-PGR Document 98 Filed 10/08/08 Page 2 of 4
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

4

 As the defendants recognize, the FLSA does not prohibit employees

from signing consent to join forms prior to the entry of a court order facilitating

notice of the collective action. See e.g., Wertheim v. State of Arizona, 1993 WL

603552 (D.Ariz. Sept. 30, 1993) (Court rejected employer’s argument that the

FLSA forbids the filing of consent to join forms prior to the court authorizing

notice.)

5

 These individuals are Efrain A. Lopez, Ramon Velasquez, Arriosto

Burguett, Ricardo Leyva, Jose Arradondo, and Arturo Rangel.

- 3 -

The Court agrees with the plaintiffs as it was not the Court’s intention that

its August 2nd order should apply to anyone who had opted-in prior to the

issuance of the order. That order, by its terms, applied only to those current and

former employees who wished to join this action. Under the FLSA, an employee

becomes a party plaintiff to a collective action once he gives his consent in writing

to becoming a party and that consent is filed with the court in which the action is

brought. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Since the consent to join forms of the 55 persons

at issue were filed on March 16, 2007, those persons became opt-in plaintiffs as

of that date, and, as such, they were no longer “potential” plaintiffs covered by the

Court’s August 2nd order.4

The defendants also argue that six of the 55 prior opt-in consents are

invalid because the signatories are allegedly Spanish-speaking individuals who

did not understand the English language forms they signed.5

 The Court declines

at this time to dismiss any of these individuals from this action due to the

incompleteness of the record. If any of these individuals believe that they were

duped into signing the consent to join forms, they may either voluntarily withdraw

their consents, or the defendants may attempt through an appropriate evidentiary

process to show that these individuals did not in fact knowingly seek to join this

Case 2:06-cv-02675-PGR Document 98 Filed 10/08/08 Page 3 of 4
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

6

 The defendants’ additional argument that Trinidad Carlos Hernandez

should be dismissed as an opt-in plaintiff was mooted by the stipulated dismissal

of Mr. Hernandez on June 30, 2008 (doc. #93).

- 4 -

action as opt-in plaintiffs.6

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion to Strike Consent to Join

Forms Filed March 16, 2007 and Clarify the Number of Joined Plaintiffs (doc.

#54) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to the extent

that the consent to join forms of opt-in plaintiffs Juan Campa R., Manuel Campa

R., Cesar Perez T., Juan Manuel Ramirez, Emigdio A. Perez Torres, and Martin

Tovar (Exhibits J, K, PP, QQ, AAA, and BBB, respectively, to doc. #21-2) are

stricken from the record and that these persons are dismissed as opt-in plaintiffs

in this action, and the motion is denied in all other respects.

DATED this 7th day of October, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02675-PGR Document 98 Filed 10/08/08 Page 4 of 4