Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06279/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06279-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO AGUAYO, et. al, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6279 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR FACILITATION

vs. OFNOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS (Doc. 19)

OLDENKAMP TRUCKING,

Defendants.

 /

Pursuant to a notice filed on August 5, 2005, plaintiff Eduardo Aguayo brings a motion to

facilitate notice to potential class members. Defendant Oldenkamp Trucking did not file an opposition.

Plaintiff did not file a reply brief. This matter was submitted on the pleadings without oral argument

pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h). Having considered the moving and opposition papers, as well as the

Court’s file, the Court issues the following order. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

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

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 violation of the California Unfair

Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal.Bus.& Prof.Code §17200 et seq. Plaintiff has moved this Court for

certification of two classes, one under the FLSA and the other under UCL. Plaintiff asks this Court for

facilitation of notice to the potential class members, provided the classes are certified. The notice to

potential class members is the same as the notice that was approved in the Willis v. Cal-Transport,

Baganha v. Cal-Transport and Vasquez v. Jim Aartman cases.

Case 1:04-cv-06279-AWI-LJO Document 28 Filed 10/03/05 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

1

 The ADEA incorporates enforcement provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.).

One of the incorporated provisions is the collective action provided by the FLSA (29 U.S.C. § 216(b).) 

2

The notice states in pertinent part:

“You may be a member of this class if you meet the following definition:

1. You worked as a truck driver for Oldenkamp Trucking Inc. At

any time on or after September 20, 2001.

2. You hauled milk from dairies to creameries and/or cheese

factories solely within the State of California. In other words,

you did not do any hauling across state lines.

3. You worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid

overtime compensation by Oldenkamp Trucking for those excess

hours.” 

Once the proposed class member receives the notice, he/she will need to sign the “Notice of

Consent to Join as a Party Plaintiff.” 

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 (1989) (approval of court facilitation in ADEA cases1). In this case, it is undisputed that

this Court has authority to facilitate notice to potential class members. Pursuant to Hoffmann-LaRoche

Inc. v. Sperling, the Court has discretion and “a managerial responsibility to oversee the joinder of

additional parties to assure that the task is accomplished in an efficient and proper way." Id. at 170-171,

110 S.Ct. 482. 

Plaintiff argues that the motion is not premature. Plaintiff argues the simultaneous consideration

of both the issues, the motion to certify and the motion for class notification, serves judicial economy

and expedites the process of notice to class members. Moreover, defendant does not suffer prejudice

from simultaneous consideration. If the motion for certification is denied, the notice to class members

is moot. 

Case 1:04-cv-06279-AWI-LJO Document 28 Filed 10/03/05 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

The Court, nonetheless, finds it is premature to grant the motion for notice to the class members.

The District Court Judge has not ruled on the Findings and Recommendations recommending the classes

be certified. For instance, in a prior motion, the class definition was altered. A variation in the class

definition may effect the notice. Thus, the Court finds it premature to authorize notice.

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES this motion without prejudice. 

The Court will reconsider this motion, sua sponte, upon the District Court’s ruling on the

Findings and Recommendations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06279-AWI-LJO Document 28 Filed 10/03/05 Page 3 of 3