Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04444/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04444-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEIL WEINSTEIN, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

METLIFE INC., et al., 

Defendants. /

KIM REEDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

Nos. C 06-04444 SI; C 07-0538

ORDER RE: REEDER PLAINTIFFS

On July 6, 2007, the Court issued an order granting plaintiff Neil Weinstein’s motion for

production of documents constituting or reflecting communications between plaintiffs in the Reeder

action and their counsel, Scott Cole, prior to the date on which the Reeder action was filed. The Court

also granted Weinstein’s motion for permission to contact the Reeder plaintiffs. Finally, the Court

ordered Cole to submit declarations from the Reeder plaintiffs, detailing their understanding of the

reasons for, and chronology of, their decision to file the Reeder action and withdraw from the

Weinstein FLSA action.

On July 13, 2007, Cole filed declarations from five of the six Reeder plaintiffs. A cover letter

Case 3:06-cv-04444-SI Document 138 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Counsel for Weinstein, Wolf Haldenstein, has submitted e-mail correspondence from Mr. Myers

indicating some confusion or lack of knowledge as to the history of the cases and his role therein. See

July 16, 2007 Letter, Ex. B.

2

to the declarations indicated that the sixth plaintiff, Donald Myers, was out of town and unreachable

through July 16, 2007, at the earliest. As of the date of this order, Cole has yet to submit a declaration

from Mr. Myers.1

 The cover letter also indicated that another of the plaintiffs, Abdulsalam Borgi,

“appear[ed] to now be in an utter state of confusion,” and it was unclear whether he stood by the

declaration submitted to the Court. Since that time, counsel in the Weinstein action, Wolf Haldenstein,

has provided the Court with an updated declaration from Mr. Borgi, which states “I was confused and

at that time I did not understand that I was opting out of the Weinstein case,” and “I did not know that

I was changing cases and lawyers until now.” July 16, 2007 Letter, Ex. A. He also noted that “I am not

accusing [Scott Cole & Associates] of deception, it could have been my fault because I did not try to

ask more questions to understand what is going on with my case.” Id. Mr. Borgi requested that he be

included back in the Weinstein case. Id.

In addition to the declarations, the Court has also received several letters from Cole and Wolf

Haldenstein, accusing each other of misbehavior. On July 10, 2007, Wolf Haldenstein sent a five page

letter to those Reeder plaintiffs that had formerly opted in to the Weinstein action. The letter explained

the history of the cases, and stated three goals: (1) “to keep you current with regard to the Weinstein

case”; (2) “to request that you speak to plaintiffs’ counsel in Weinstein so that they can answer any

specific questions you have and confirm that you understand your position in the Weinstein case”; and

(3) “to tell you that one of the undersigned counsel will telephone you shortly to ask for your help in

assembling needed financial information which will assist the Weinstein state law class in an August

settlement mediation.” Wolf Haldenstein attached to the letter a copy of this Court’s most recent order.

On July 13, 2007, Cole filed a letter with the Court complaining about the July 10th letter. The

July 10th letter, Cole asserts, “was indisputably designed to undermine [Scott Cole & Associates’]

ability to obtain the declarations requested by this Court.” Statements contained in the letter, Cole

asserts, violate various sections of the California Penal Code and the California Rules of Professional

Conduct. Wolf Haldenstein replied to Cole’s July 13th letter on July 16th, and Cole filed another letter

Case 3:06-cv-04444-SI Document 138 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

on July 16th as well.

The Court has reviewed the July 10th letter sent by Wolf Haldenstein to the Reeder plaintiffs

and finds that it contains nothing improper. The Court granted Wolf Haldenstein permission to contact

the Reeder plaintiffs, and they did so in a reasonable and transparent manner. The letter appears to be

an honest attempt to clarify the procedural history of the Weinstein and Reeder actions. The letter

contains no gross inaccuracies or misrepresentations, and does not encourage the recipients to take any

particular action, other than to contact Wolf Haldenstein with any questions. As mentioned above, it

is apparent that at least two of the six Reeder plaintiffs do not have a full understanding of the genesis

of, and their role in, the Reeder and Weinstein actions. As such, the July 10th letter was not

unwarranted, and likely helped plaintiffs understand the current status of the cases.

Finally, the Court wishes to make clear to the Reeder plaintiffs that the decision as to which case

they wish to participate in, and to what extent, is their own to make. Neither the attorneys nor the Court

have the authority to force plaintiffs into one case or the other. Attorneys exist to serve the interests of

their clients, not vice versa. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04444-SI Document 138 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 of 3