Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01118/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01118-3/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

27

28 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ARTURO VALENCIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FRENCH CONNECTION BAKERY, INC.,

et al., 

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 07-1118 PVT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

CLAIMS OF ALL PLAINTIFFS OTHER THAN

CESAR SANTACRUZ SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND

ORDER RE-REFERRING CASE TO COURT

MEDIATION AND FURTHER CONTINUING

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

On November 30, 2007, this court issued an order that stayed the case, continued the Case

Management Conference, and directed those Plaintiffs who wished to continue litigating this matter

to file a “Consent to Be Party Plaintiff” no later than December 14, 2007. As of the date of this

1

order, the only Plaintiff who has filed a “Consent to Be Party Plaintiff” is Cesar Santacruz. 

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than January 8, 2008, any party who objects to the

claims of Plaintiffs Arturo Valencia, Javier Santacruz, Edgar Santacruz, and Freddy Gomez being

dismissed without prejudice for failure to file a “Consent to Be Party Plaintiff” shall file a

declaration showing cause, if any exists, why those Plaintiffs’ claims should not be so dismissed.

Case 5:07-cv-01118-PVT Document 29 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 2
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

No similar statement of fairness is necessary with regard to the other four Plaintiffs,

2

because none of them have filed a “Consent to Be Party Plaintiff.” See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (“No

employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become

such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.”) Moreover, a

dismissal without prejudice will not effect a waiver of their FLSA claims, and they will remain free to

pursue those claims if they so chose. 

ORDER, page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Cesar Santacruz and Defendants are again

referred to this court’s mediation program. Counsel for these parties shall promptly contact the

court’s ADR department to make the necessary arrangements. The parties shall make diligent efforts

to schedule the mediation to occur no later than February 11, 2008. In the event the case settles, the

parties shall promptly file a stipulated request for either dismissal or entry of judgment (whichever

applies), along with a joint statement supporting the fairness of the settlement. See, e.g., Barrentine 2

v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981) (noting that wage claims under the Fair

Labor Standards Act are non-waivable); See also, Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, et al.,

679 F. 2d 1350, 1352-53 (11 Cir. 1982) (indicating that a district court may approve a settlement of th

FLSA wage claims only after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness); see also, Zhou v. Wang’s

Restaurant, 2007 WL 2298046 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 08, 2007). In order to facilitate the mediation of

Cesar Santacruz’ claims, no later than January 3, 2008 Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide to Defense

counsel copies of the documents disclosed in Plaintiff’s initial disclosures, as discussed at the

October 2, 2007 Case Management Conference in this matter. At this time Plaintiff’s counsel need

only provide copies of documents that relate to Plaintiff Cesar Santacruz’ claims, and need not

provide copies of documents that relate solely to Arturo Valencia, Javier Santacruz, Edgar Santacruz

or Freddy Gomez. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Case Management Conference in this matter is

continued to February 19, 2008. The parties shall file a supplemental Joint Case Management

Conference Statement no later than February 12, 2008.

Dated: 12/18/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01118-PVT Document 29 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 2