Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01274/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01274-0/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL FEYH, on behalf of himself 

and all similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-01274-TLN-EFB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL 

CERTIFICATION AND FACILITATED 

NOTICE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification and 

Facilitated Notice (ECF No. 84). In the underlying action, Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated 

the Fair Labor Standards Act by underpaying overtime to its employees because of unlawful 

exclusions of certain incentives in the calculation of Plaintiff’s pay. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) 

Plaintiff moves to conditionally certify this case as a collective action and facilitate a proposed 

notice procedure pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Plaintiff seeks to notify potential opt-in 

plaintiffs in accordance with Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989). 

Defendant filed a Statement of Non-Opposition (ECF No. 87). 

Good cause having been shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. This is a collective action conditionally certified as affecting a group of similarly 

situated individuals consisting of any and all current or former employees of the City of 

Case 2:16-cv-01274-TLN-EFB Document 90 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 6
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

Sacramento who have worked overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits 

within the same pay period at any time since June 10, 2013.

2. Plaintiff Michael Feyh is appointed collective action representative.

3. Plaintiff’s counsel, Mastagni Holstedt, APC is appointed counsel for this collective 

action.

4. The proposed notice to potential collective action members attached as Exhibit A 

hereto is approved as fair and accurate. 

5. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Defendant shall distribute the notice, 

attached as Exhibit A hereto, to all current employees who have worked overtime and received 

cash payments in lieu of health care benefits within the same pay period at any time since June 

10, 2013, via the employees’ work-issued email addresses. To simplify this process, Defendant 

may choose, at its discretion, to send notice to all employees’ work-issued email, rather than just 

those who worked overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits within the 

same pay period at any time since June 10, 2013. 

6. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Defendant shall distribute the notice, 

attached as Exhibit A hereto, to all former employees who have worked overtime and received 

cash payments in lieu of health care benefits within the same pay period, and were employed by 

Defendant since June 10, 2013, by first class mail to the former employees’ last known mailing 

address. To simplify this process, Defendant may choose, at its discretion, to send notice to all 

former employees employed since June 10, 2013, by first class mail to their last known mailing 

address, rather than just those who worked overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health 

care benefits within the same pay period at any time since June 10, 2013.

7. Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, Defendant shall provide Plaintiff’s 

counsel with proof of distribution of the notice as set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01274-TLN-EFB Document 90 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:16-cv-01274-TLN-EFB Document 90 Filed 12/06/16 Page 3 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEYH, et al. v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Case No. 2:16-cv-01274-TLN-EFB 

IMPORTANT NOTIFICATION TO POTENTIAL COLLECTIVE ACTION MEMBERS 

THIS NOTICE AND ITS CONTENTS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

THE COURT HAS TAKEN NO POSITION IN THIS CASE REGARDING THE MERITS 

OF PLAINTIFF=S CLAIMS OR DEFENDANT=S DEFENSES. 

Please read carefully. Your legal rights may be affected.

TO: Any and all current or former employees of the City of Sacramento who have worked 

overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits within the same pay 

period at any time since June 10, 2013.

RE: LAWSUIT ASSERTING VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL WAGE LAWS AGAINST 

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

INTRODUCTION

This Notice is being sent to you by Order and under supervision of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California. The purpose of this notice is: (1) to inform 

you of the existence of a collective action lawsuit filed against the City of Sacramento; (2) to 

advise you of how your rights may be affected by this lawsuit; and (3) to instruct you on the 

procedure for participating in this lawsuit. You have been sent this notice because employment 

records indicate that you may be Asimilarly situated@ to the named Plaintiff.

DESCRIPTION OF LAWSUIT

On June 10, 2016, the named Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against the City of Sacramento 

on behalf of himself and all current and former City of Sacramento non-exempt employees who 

have worked overtime for the City and received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits 

since June 10, 2013. The complaint alleges Plaintiff is entitled to additional overtime pay under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The lawsuit alleges the City violated the FLSA by failing 

to pay Plaintiff the full amount due for all overtime hours worked. The lawsuit alleges the City of 

Sacramento failed to include these cash payments into the regular rate of pay for purposes of 

determining overtime compensation resulting in an underpayment of legally required overtime 

wages. Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to recover unpaid overtime from since June 10, 2013, plus 

liquidated damages in an equal amount, and attorney fees and costs. The City of Sacramento 

denies Plaintiff=s allegations and is defending against Plaintiff=s claims.

Case 2:16-cv-01274-TLN-EFB Document 90 Filed 12/06/16 Page 4 of 6
Plaintiff=s claims in this action are limited to a two (2) or potentially three (3) year 

Astatute of limitations.@ If you choose to join this lawsuit, you may be able to recover damages 

only for overtime hours worked within this time period. 

HOW TO JOIN THIS LAWSUIT

Under the FLSA, Asimilarly situated@ employees may join the existing lawsuit. If you 

worked for the City of Sacramento at any time since June 10, 2013, and received cash payments 

in lieu of health care benefits and worked overtime during the same pay period at any time, you 

may join this lawsuit. Should you wish to join this lawsuit, you must contact Plaintiff=s counsel 

in sufficient time to allow Plaintiff=s counsel to file a AConsent to be Included as Individual 

Plaintiff@ form with the court. Plaintiff=s counsel=s contact information is set forth below. 

David E. Mastagni, Esq. Email: 

saccityflsa@mastagni.com 

Isaac Stevens, Esq. Phone: (916) 446-4692

Ace T. Tate, Esq. Fax: (916) 447-4614

Mastagni Holstedt, APC website: http://www.mastagni.com

1912 I Street

Sacramento, California 95811

If you do not contact Plaintiff=s counsel and arrange for them to file a Consent form on 

your behalf, you may not be able to participate in this lawsuit. 

If you choose to join this lawsuit, you will be bound by any judgment or settlement, 

whether it is favorable or unfavorable. While this lawsuit is proceeding, you may be required to 

respond under oath to written questions, testify in deposition, and/or testify in court. 

Plaintiff=s attorneys have taken this case on a contingency fee. They shall advance all 

reasonable litigation costs and you will not be obligated to reimburse Attorneys for any costs 

advanced if no recovery is obtained. The attorneys may be entitled to receive attorney fees and 

costs from the City of Sacramento should there be a recovery or judgment in favor of the 

Plaintiff. If there is a recovery, Plaintiff=s attorneys will apply to receive an award of separate 

attorney fees, or a percentage of any common fund judgment or settlement obtained in favor of 

Plaintiff, but not both. If there is no recovery or judgment in Plaintiff=s favor, Plaintiff=s 

attorneys will not seek any attorney fees or costs from anyone.

NO RETALIATION PERMITTED

Under federal law, it is illegal for the City of Sacramento to retaliate against you for 

joining this lawsuit.

EFFECT OF NOT JOINING THIS LAWSUIT

If you do not contact Plaintiff=s counsel and arrange for them to file a Consent form on 

your behalf, you will not be joined in this lawsuit and will not be bound by any judgment or 

Case 2:16-cv-01274-TLN-EFB Document 90 Filed 12/06/16 Page 5 of 6
settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you do not join this lawsuit, you will not receive 

any back overtime wages or other relief from this case if the Plaintiff prevails on his FLSA 

claims. Federal law (FLSA) requires that any claims for overtime compensation must be filed, 

if at all, in a state or federal court within two (2) years (or within three (3) years if the violation 

was willful as defined by law). Any claims for overtime pay under federal law that are not filed 

within these limits are likely to be denied as untimely.

QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS NOTICE

If you have any questions regarding this notice, you may contact Plaintiff=s counsel, 

David E. Mastagni, Esq., Isaac Stevens, Esq., or Ace Tate, Esq. of Mastagni Holstedt, APC. 

Case 2:16-cv-01274-TLN-EFB Document 90 Filed 12/06/16 Page 6 of 6