Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03162/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03162-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 28, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ADELINA GARCIA; ANTONIO

GARCIA; JERONIMO

VARGAS-VERA; EFRAIN

AGUILAR; PAULINA AGUILAR;

ADELAIDA AGUIRRE; JOSE R.

AGUIRRE; SALVADOR ALMANZA;

MIGUEL AMAYA; ROGELIO

ANDRADE; JESUS ANGUIANO;

EFIGENIA ARANA; JOSE R.

ARANA; RAMON ARANA; ALMA

ARMENDARIZ; JORGE L. BANDA

VALADEZ; DELFINO BARRAGAN;

LUCIA BARRAGAN; RAMON P.

BARRAGAN; HOLGA BENITEZ;

BALTAZAR BONILLA; MARIA

GUADALUPE BONILLA;

CATALINA BUSTILLOS;

BERNARDO CALDERON;

ETELVINA CALDERON; GLORIA

CALZADA DE CARILLO; MANUEL

CALZADILLAS; JOAQUIN

CAMACHO; ROBERTO CANO;

ROSA M. CANO; ALBERTO

CARRILLO; JAVIER

CARRAVAJAL; LUIS CASTANON;

MARIA ROSARIO CASTILLO;

VICTOR CASTILLO; DAVID

CASTRO; CIPRIANO CERNA;

FLAVIO CHAVEZ; JOSE A.

CHAVEZ; GRISELDA CLARO;

JESUS CLARO; JOSE L.

CONTRERAS; ELISEO PEREZ

CORREA; AGUSTIN CRUZ; FLOR

ANGELA CRUZ; LORENZO CRUZ;

SOCORRO DE LEON; AURORA

No. 07-3162

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 1
-2-

CHAVEZ DE MONTES; JAVIER

DELGADO; JOSE N. DELGADO;

LILIANA MARTINEZ DELGADO;

LOREZO DELGADO; GILDARDO

RAMON DIAZ; ROSA D. DIAZ;

CARMELO G. DIAZ-SANTAMARIA;

ANA DURAN; EDGAR E. DURAN;

ABE DYCK; ELIZABETH DYCK;

FERNANDO H. ESCALANTE;

MARINA ESCALANTE; CANDIDO

HERNANDEZ ESCOBEDO; CARLOS

E. ESPINO; FRANCISCO ESTRADA;

HUMBERTO ESTRADA; MARIA

ESTRADA; AIDE B. ESTRADA

VITAL; JESUS FELIX; JOSE

FLORES; JUAN JOSE FLORES;

TOMASA FRAIRE; ERASMO

GALAN; MARICELA GALAN;

ROMUALDO GALAN; GLORIA

GALAVIZ; ROCIO GALAVIZ; CIRO

GALVEZ; SILVIA REYES GALVEZ;

AGUSTIN GARCIA; BERTHA

GARCIA; HUMBERTO PEREZ

GARCIA; LUZ E. GARCIA; MAURO

GARCIA; MOISES GARCIA; MARIA

S. GLORIA; ELIA GOITIA;

MELQUIADES GONZALES; JUAN

M. GONZALEZ; MARIA T.

GONZALES; MIGUEL LORENZO

GONZALEZ; ROSARI MELENDEZ

GRANDE; MANUEL GUERRERO;

SAMUEL GUEVARA; ANGEL R.

GUTIERREZ; EUSEBIO GUZMAN;

JUANA GUZMAN; LETICIA

GUZMAN; ROSENDO GUZMAN;

SILVIA GUZMAN; ELIZABETH C.

HAMILTON; HERBER RUFINO

HENRIQUEZ; ALBERTO

HERNANDEZ; EFREN

HERNANDEZ; ELIDA

HERNANDEZ; FELICIANO

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 2
-3-

HERNANDEZ; FIDEL HERNANDEZ;

GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ;

JESUS HERNANDEZ; JORGE

HERNANDEZ; MARIA

HERNANDEZ; MIGUEL ANGEL

HERNANDEZ; ROSA HERNANDEZ;

WENCESLAO C. HERNANDEZ;

WILFRIDO HERNANDEZ; ADRIAN

S. HERRADA; AIDA HERRADA;

ALFONSO HERRADA; MARIA

GUADALUPE HERRADA;

ELIZABETH HERRADA DE CRUZ;

RANDY HOSKINSON; OSCAR

INTERIANO; MARTIN H. ISCO;

MARGARITA LEANOS; PEDRO

LEYVA; CELSA LEYVA

DE GARCIA; BLANCA E. LIRA;

DIANA LOPEZ; GENARO LOPEZ;

ISMAEL LOPEZ; LAURA LOPEZ;

LAURO LOPEZ; MARGARITO

LOPEZ; MARIA DEL CARMEN

LOPEZ; MARIA DE LA LUZ LOPEZ;

MAURA LOPEZ; MIGUEL A.

LOPEZ; MIGUEL Z. LOPEZ;

RODOLFO LOPEZ; MODESTO

LOYA; JOSE A. LUJAN; MANUELA

O. GARAY DE LUJAN; BEATRIZ

MADERA; MONICA MARMOLEJO;

FELICIANO MARTINEZ; FIDEL

MARTINEZ; GANDINO MARTINEZ;

LETICIA MARTINEZ; NESTOR

MARTINEZ; RAFAELA ORTIZ

MARTINEZ; SATURNINO

MARTINEZ; MARIO MAYA;

DOMINGO MARTIN MEDINA;

RAMIRO MEJIA; MARIA DORA

MENDEZ; RODOLFO MENDEZ;

BEATRIZ MENDOZA; IRENE E.

MERINO; DIONILA MEZQUITA;

MARIA MOLINA; MAXIO A.

MOLINA; SERGIO A.

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 3
-4-

MONRREAL-ROCHA; RAUL

MONRROY; ALFONSO MONTANO;

LUIS MONTERROZA; ADRIAN

MORALES; FRANCISCA

MAGALLANES MUNIZ; ALFONSO

MURCIA; CARLOS MURGUIA;

ABRAHAM SOSA; ABEL

NAVARRETE; ALBERTO TAMAYO;

LORENZO NAVARRETE; SONIA

TAMAYO; RAMON NAVARRETTE;

ALISIA NIETO; JOSE J. TERRAZAS;

ISAAC OLGUIN; MARIA

TERRAZAS; JAVIER OLGUIN;

MARY OLGUIN; ALBARO TORRES;

MARIA D. OLIVAS; SANG THI

TRAN; LAURO ORTEGA; THANH

NGOC TRAN; MARIA ROSA

ORTEGA; MARICELA LARES

ORTEGA; MARIA URRUTIA;

YOLANDA ORTEGA; ROLANDO

VAILLANT; FRANCISCO A.

ORTEZ; MARIA E. VALADEZ;

MANUEL OSORIO; YASMIN

VALADEZ; JOSE RAUL PALACIOS;

MARIA ANGELINA PALACIOS;

GILBERTO ARMANDO VALENCIA;

MIGUEL PERALES; ABRAHAM

VALLEJO; BERTHA PEREZ;

GABRIELA PEREZ; BERTHA

VALLEJO; JORGE L. PEREZ;

MARIANA VANEGAS; MARTHA

PEREZ; GERARDO C. VARELA;

JOSE ALEJANDRO PINEDA;

ALEJANDRO PONCE; JOSE

VASQUEZ; IRMA PONCE;

RAYMUNDO VASQUEZ; JUAN

PONCE; SALVADOR VASQUEZ;

JOSE VICTOR PRIETO; ROSA

MARIA VELASCO; EUGENE

PROKOPINSKI; SAUL VELASCO;

JUAN ENRIQUE RAMIREZ;

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 4
-5-

MARIA RAMIREZ; NICOLAS

RAMIREZ-ACOSTA; JOSE

RENTERIA; ALMA RESENDIZ;

ESTEBAN RESENDIZ; SANDRA

RESENDIZ; JOSE A. REYES;

FRANCISCO J. VELAZQUEZ;

IRMA G. VELAZQUEZ; MIRIAM

DEL CARMEN REYES; FRANCISCO

MONTES RIOS; REYMUNDO

VIANA; SALVADOR ALVAREZ

RIVERA; JESUS VILLEDA; JORGE

ROBLES; SANTIAGO VILLEGAS,

JR.; LUZ M. ROCHA; SERGIO

ZAMORA; GUADALUPE

RODRIGUEZ; JOSE R.

RODRIGUEZ; MARINA

RODRIGUEZ; RAFAEL

RODRIGUEZ; ROSA RODRIGUEZ;

SALVADOR ROMERO; RUBEN N.

SALAS-ORTIZ; RICARDO

SALDANA; SIXTO SALDANA;

CANDIDO MARINO SANCHEZ;

ROSA MARIA SANCHEZ; RAMON

SANDOVAL; DANIEL

SANTACRUZ; LUIS A.

SANTACRUZ; JOAQUIN

SANTOYO; SOFIA E. SAUCEDA;

ALEJANDRO SERRANO;

ARMANDO SERRANO; FERNANDO

SERRANO; SERGIO SERRANO;

BRENDA SERRATO; RAFAEL

SOLIS; DAVID S. SOLORZANO;

AARON SOSA; MIGUEL

AGUILERA; JUANA ALMANZA;

MANUEL ALMANZA; BENITO

BARRAGAN; MARIA CERRITOS;

ISMAEL CHAIREZ; SARA

CHAVARRIA; RAQUEL ESTRADA;

ANA R. FLORES; JOSE HUERTA;

SOPHIA LAMDERO; ARNULFO

LIRA; GABRIELA LIRA; JULIA

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 5
-6-

LOPEZ; MANUEL DE JESUS

LOPEZ; MARIA A. MARTINEZ;

MARIA GUADALUPE MARTINEZ;

MAREIAL MORALES; ESTELA

MURGUIA; ARMANDO NUNEZ;

MICHELLE ORTEGA; OMAR

ORTEGA; LUIS ORTIZ; ROSALIA

PEREZ; SOCORRO PEREZ; MARIA

PEREZ-SERRANO; MELANIA

PINEDA; JOSE RAMIREZ; PETER

RAMIREZ; STEVEN RAMIREZ;

DIANA RAMOS; BLANCA

SALMERON; FELIX SOLOZANO;

VASHON L. TELFAIR; ARTURO

VILLANUEVA; IRINEO ZEPIEN;

CARLOS ACOSTA; ELIAS

MURILLO AVALOS; HUGO

CASTRUITA; ALICIA MUNOZ

HERNANDEZ; FRANCISCO

HUEREQUE; ALICIA MARTINEZ;

JOSE G. MARTINEZ; PEDRO

NEAVE; CATALINA ALVARAEZ

DE NICHOLS; EDUARD NICHOLS;

MARIA DEL CARMEN PEREZ;

MARIA MARGARITA RENOVA;

ALICIA SANCHEZ; MACARIO R.

FARIAS; PRIMITIVO GALVEZ;

MARIA LOURDES GONZALES;

GASPAR BENITO LUX; ENRIQUE

MUNOZ; GREGORIA RAMIREZ;

SALVADOR SANCHEZ; AURA

SANTACRUZ; JOSE I. VALDEZ;

HECTOR GARCIA VALLES; JESUS

AGUILAR; MARIA A. ARREOLA;

FEDERICO G. BALTAZAR;

ARMANDO CASTILLO; ABIGAIL

CHAIREZ; MARIA ESTRADA

CHAIREZ; PATRICIA CORREA;

ANGELICA MARIA NUNEZ

ENRIQUEZ; JOSE ANSELMO

ENRIQUEZ; FRANCISCO

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 6
-7-

ESQUIVEL; HUMBERTO

ESQUIVEL; TOMAS FELIX;

MARIA FLORES; SAMUEL GOMEZ;

ELIZABETH GONZALES; KRISTAL

GONZALEZ; RONALD W.

HARDEN; TEODOLO HEREDIA;

MARIO HERRERA; RIBORGERTO

JOHNSON; JOSE DE JESUS

LIAMAS; LUIS E. LOZANO;

MARIO CHAIREZ MARES;

EUSEBIO MARROQUIN; MARIA

NOELI MONTOYA; NORMA

NAIERA MORALES; HUGO

ORTEGA; ROSALBA ORTEGA;

GONZALO PADILLA; MERCEDES

RAMIREZ; SALVADOR ROJO;

RODOLFO RUBALCAVA;

ROSINDA DE JESUS UCLES;

IGINIO CRUZ; FELIPE BRAVO;

CHARLES VELAZQUEZ BAEZ;

REYNA LOPEZ; AURORA

ALDANA; EDUARDO F. NOLASCO;

PEDRO BALTAZAR; EDDIE

PRIETO; JACIMTO ALMAREZ;

CARLOS MARTINEZ; MARIA

MARTINEZ; JOSEFINA GARCIA

DE RODRIGUEZ; FELIMON

RODRIGUEZ; JOSE MARTIN

HERNANDEZ; JOSH LUNDBLADE;

NORA DURAN; SANDRA M.

HERNANDEZ ALFARO; FAUSTO

VASQUEZ; JOSE HERNANDEZ;

JORGE HINOJOSA; SEVERIONA

HINOJOSA; GILBERTO GUILLEN;

CRUZ P. RAMIREZ; VIDALINA G.

GALVAN; ANTHONY GARCIA;

ASCENCION GARCIA; ROBERTO

AGUILAR; ROBERTO ALMEDA;

BLANCA BENITEZ; DAVID

CHAVEZ; LUIS ALBERTO

SANTACRUZ CASTANEDA;

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 7
-8-

MARTIN FACIO; FEDERICO

CHAVEZ; AARON FINDLEY;

ANTONIO HINOJOS; MARIA

LAGUNA GUERRA; JOEL GARCIA

MAEDA; JOSE MORALES;

ELIZABETH ONTVEROS; JOEL

ORTEGA; MANUELA ORTEGA;

JUAN REYES; PEDRO REYES;

HELADIO RIVAS; CARMELITA

ROSALES; FEDERICO ROSALES;

ALFREDO RUTIAGA; REYNA

SALINAS; RAMON SOTO; JOSE

ARRAS; MARIA DEL CARMEN;

ELAINE ROMERO; CARLOS

MENDIAS; SABRINA GARCIA;

ADAMS MURILLO; AMALIA

MORALES; MICHAEL LIBARRA;

ARTURO CELIS; SONYA MARIBEL

HERNANDEZ; MARIA GERRERO;

WILFRIDO INGLES; EDELMIRA

VELAZZO; SHARON SMITH;

RAMON PEREZ; CINDY

CISNEROS; DORA ALICIA

MARTINEZ; AMADO FIGUEROA;

GUADALUPE QUESADA;

PATRICIA ANGUIANO; JOSE LUIS

BARRON MENDEZ; MARIA

PONCE; LEONARDO GODINEZ

VILLALOBOS; J. R. OTERO;

ALVARO TORRES; FIDEL REYES;

ISMAEL LOPEZ; JOSE VALADEZ;

RAFAEL RUIZ; LEOPOLDO

SANCHEZ; SAUL RIVERA;

MIGUEL ENRIQUEZ; RICARDO

MARTINEZ; GLORIA GARCIA;

JOSE MINEROS; INES LOPEZ;

PEDRO S. HERNANDEZ;

ALEJANDRO SOLORZANO;

FRANCISCA QUINTANA; CRUZ

GUEVARA; CRISTINA TUCKER;

PASCUAL BARCENAS; MIGUEL

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 8
-9-

CORTEZ; MARIA ELENA GOMEZ;

ROQUE SOTO; ARMANDO

AGUIRRE; JESUS ALVAREZ;

GALINDA BANUELOS; LETICIA

CARDEMAS; MARIA DAMIAN;

GUILLERMO DOMINQUEZ; CARLA

ESPINO; OSCAR GALVEZ;

BERNABED GRAMAJO; FRANK

GUEBANC; FRANCISCO

GUERRERO; ANTONIA

HERNANDEZ; LETICIA

HERNANDEZ; MARCO ANTONIO

HERNANDEZ; JOSE MARTINEZ;

JOSE LUIS MEDINA; MARTHA

MARIA MENDIOLA; SILVIA

NAVAR; DAVID RAMIREZ; MARIA

I. REYES; FRANCISCO RICO; JUAN

RICO RODRIQUEZ; LAWRENCE

STEADHAM; MARTIN TERRAZAS,

JR.; BERTHA F. TREJO; JUAN

VIRQUEZ; MARIA R. PENA;

ANTONIO G. VILLEGAS; ISAAC

ADAME; CALIXTO AGUILAR;

ROSA BARAHOMA; ISAAC

BONILLA; JAVIER CASTELLANOS;

MARIA CASTRUITA; LUIS

ORLANDO COTO; FELIX CRUZ;

HIGINIO CRUZ; MARIA CRUZ;

JUAN M. CALDERON

DOMINQUEZ; JOSE INES

SANCHEZ ESPINOZA; JUAN

FIGUEROA; VICTORIANO

GALVEZ; MARIA E. GOMEZ;

ELENA GONZALES; ROBIN E.

HERNANDEZ; BERTA HERRERA;

BRENDA LEIJA; HERLINDA

LEYVA; EDUARDO LOMELIN;

NOE LOPEZ; AURELIO MARQUEZ;

BARBARO MENDOZA; LUISA

MIGUEL; FLORISELA NUNCIO;

GILBERTO GARCIA PONCE;

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 9
-10-

CRISTINA RENTERIA;

HERMENEGILDO RESENDEZ;

MARIA ELENA RETANA;

LOCADIO ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ;

ARMANDO RICO; MARIA

RODRIGUEZ; MARIA RUCKER;

BLANCA SALAZAR; PATRICK

SMITH; MARIA SOLIS; ATANACIO

SOLORSANO; SAUL LOPEZ

SATELO; LIDIA SOTELO; JOSE

ACOSTA; MARIA GUEVARA;

CLARA INES LOPEZ; RAMIRO

ADAME; HUMBERTO

ARREDONDO; MARTHA A.

ARREDONDO; CLAUDIA

CARDONA; VALENTIN CASTRO;

EQUILEO CISNEROS; JESUS

GASPAR ESCOBEDO; MARIA

ISABEL FELIX; HERMINIO PINO

GRACIANO; JOSE R. GUEVARA;

LORENA GUEVARA; ALMA ROSE

HERNANDEZ; CAROLINA

HERNANDEZ; EMILIO LANDEROS;

EDGAR LOZA; EDMUNDO

NAVARRETE; ANTONIO PUENTES;

JUAN A. PUENTES; MAYRA

PUENTES; JOEL RAMOS;

EDLFANIO REYES; JOSE WIS

SALAS; ESEQUIEL SALAZAR;

ALMA D. VELAZAQUEZ;

ALFREDO AGUILAR; ROSE

AGUILAR; JOSEFINA ALCANTAR;

JUANA ALMANZA; ISMAEL

ALVARADO; CAUDELARIO

BONILLA; OSCAR A. CABRERA;

AGUSTIN CERVANTES; JOSE

CERVANTES; MARIA

CERVANTES; ROSA M.

CERVANTES; MARTIN CHAIREZ;

MARIO FAJARDO; MARTHA

HERNANDEZ; MARCO HUERTA;

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 10
-11-

ADELAIDO LEAL; IVONNE J.

MALONE; JESUS MENDOZA;

MARIA C. MORALES; JUAN

MUNOZ; LIMBO ADRIANA PEREZ;

JOSEFINA PRIETO; SALBADOR

RASCOM; LINO SALAS; ANGEL

SEIJAS; CRISTINA VARGAS; ANA

MARIA ASTORGA; TERESA

ESCOVAR; MANUEL H.

GONZALEZ; ALICIA HERNANDEZ;

RAUL HERNANDEZ; ANA MARIA

JIMENEZ; MARIA LEON; SAMUEL

LIBERTO; ROSA MACIAS; JAVIER

MARTINEZ; JAIME MONARREZ;

IVAN MONTES; JUAN NUNEZ;

ANTONIO QUESADA; MARIA

RIVERA; GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ;

JOSE TOPETE; JOSE VLLOA;

ROBERT WILSON; MIGUEL LOPEZ

ZAVALA; MARIA DE LA LUZ

ALEJO; ASENCION BARRIOS;

GLORIA BENITEZ; ADRIAN

MARTINEZ BONILLA; MARTIN

DOMINQUEZ; ANGELICA I.

GUADERRAMA; SALVADOR

HOLQUIN; MARGARITA OLIVAS;

CELERINO PACHECO; MARTHA

PENA DE HERNANDEZ; MARIA

DEL ROCIO SOTELO; MIGUEL

SOTO RODRIGUEZ; JUVENAL

SOTELO; ELEVTERIA TORRES

ELIAS VELASCO; SAID ABID;

DANNY ALVIDREZ; CESAR

AQUINO; JUAN ANTONIO

BONILLA; GRISELDA CORADO;

ABDISALAN GUARAD; EDIN E.

GOMEZ; DAVID HERNANDEZ;

ESPERANZA HERNANDEZ; JOSE S.

LAZARIN; INOCENTE LOPEZ;

ABDULKADIR MOHAMED OMAR;

CLAUDIA PENA; INOCENTE

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 11
-12-

PEREZ SANCHEZ; ROCIO PEREZ;

JOSE MANUEL PINEDA; RUBEN

ROBLES; MARGARITA ROMOS

ROJAS; RUSSELL SAUCEDO;

MARTHA SANCHEZ; ARACELI

ALARCON; BENJAMIN ALVAREZ;

ROSA M. BALTAZAR; GILDARDO

BARRAGAN; JUAN CHAVEZ;

LAQUITA CLARK; ANTONIO

MARTINEZ; ANTONIO MARTINEZ

CANO; JUAN FRANCISCO

MENDEZ; RICHARD MOLINA;

MARIA E. MONTANO; JUAN F.

MUNOZ; GREGORIO ORTEGA;

MARIA FELIX ORTEGA; MICHELL

PINEDA; CARMEN RAMIREZ;

IMELDA ANILES; JOSE ARANDA;

ADRIAN ARCE; LUIS CHAVEZ;

GERARDU CONTRERAS; JOSE L.

FELIX; RAFAEL G. GALLARDO;

MARIA GOMEZ; OLGA V. GOMEZ;

MIGUEL GONZALES; MARIA

LUISA HERRERA; FLORENCIA

CORONADO JUARADO;

GUADALUPE LOPEZ; TELESFORO

MONTELONGO; ERNESTINE

MAGALLANES RIOS; CHRIS

MORALES; FRANK RIVERA;

JAVIER HERNANDEZ RIVERA;

VILMA RUBIO; FEDERICO A.

SOLIS; SALVADOR TOQUINTO;

MARTIN ALVAREZ; MARCO

ANTONIO ARTEGA; EDITH A.

BARRERA; JOSE OVIDIO BENITEZ;

JOSE L. CORTEZ CASTRO; TONY

CRUZ; ROSAMARIA MONTES

DE CORTEZ; CARLOS

DOMINGUEZ; EUSEBIA

DOMINGUEZ; JOSE J. HERRERA

GALDAMEZ; OBED LIRA; MIGUEL

LOPEZ; VICENTE MARQUEZ;

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 12
-13-

MARIA L. MONTELONGO;

AURORA RAMOS; JESUS RAMOS;

LAURO RIOS; FELIPE ROBLEDO;

ELIDA SALVADOR; MARIA

SOLORZANO; MANUEL SANCHEZ;

DEBBY G. TORRES; GONZALO

ALBARRAN; JASINTO ALMARAZ;

MARIA E. ALMARAZ; MARIA

SARA ALVAREZ; RAFAEL

ARAGOMEZ; JUAN ARREOLA;

JOSE R. BOTELLO; HECTOR

CASTILLO; SAN JUANA

CAVAZOS; MARTIN CRUZ;

FLORINA DE LEON; ROLANDO

DE LEON; ABDON GARCIA; JOSE

GOMEZ; VICTOR HERNANDEZ;

NOEMI HOLGUIN; CARLOS

MARTIN LEYVA; JOSE DE JESUS

LLAMAS VALLE; BERTHA A

RODRIGUEZ; ARMANDINA

SALAZAR; LEONARDO SALAZAR;

GUILLERMINA TREJO; JULIA E.

TURCIOS; TOMAS VALDIVIA;

FRANCISCO O. YESCAS; YADIRA

ALBARRAN; CLARA M. ALVARES;

SERGIO AVITIA; OBDULIA

BARCENAS; EFRIAN DE LEON;

MAURICIO GALLEGOS;

MAURO I. GARCIA; JACINTO

GONZALES-CALVARIO; LUIS I.

GONZALEZ; JOSE F. GUEVARA;

ALEJANDRO LOPEZ; ANDRES

LOPEZ; MARIA LOPEZ; MONICA

LOPEZ; GLADYS MERINO;

CRISTINA NUNGARAY;

ALEJANDRA NUNO; RICARDO

PINTO; JOHAN M. PULIDO;

CRISTIAN RAMIREZ; MAURICIO

RAMIREZ; SOFIA REYES; JOSE

GONZALEA RIVERA; MIGUEL

RIVERA; ANDREA RODRIGUEZ;

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 13
-14-

GERARDO RONQUILLO;

DOMINGA SALDANA; ROSA

SALDIVAR; DIEGO SANCHEZ;

JESUS SORIANO; LEOBARDO

TREJO; OSCAR VASQUEZ; JOSE

ACOSTA; MARTIN ALMARAZ;

FERNANDO ALVARADO; BLANCA

L. BENITEZ; ERICK JOSE CAMPOS;

JOSE ENRIQUEZ; ADELINA

ESPINO; GERMAN FERMAN; J.

CARMEN FLORES; MARTHA

FRANCO; CARMEN I. GONZALEZ

ROSA GONZALEZ; VICTOR

MANUEL REYES; MANUELA RIOS;

MARTIN RIOS; FELIPE TENA;

MARGARITA MEZA DE TENA;

IRMA VICENTE; FABIAN

VILLATORO; ERNESTO

ALCANTARA; ELMER LOPEZ;

DOMINGO SIERRA; JOSE

RODRIGUEZ; DELIA

VALENZUCLA; DARLENE

ACEVEDO; JOSI ANGEL AMAYA;

AUGUSTIN AVILA; MANUEL

ANGEL BALBANEDA; JOSE

BARRERA; JUAN PABLO

CANQLES; MANUEL CISNEROS;

RAFAELA CISNEROS; HERMILA

CORRAL; LUZ IDALIA CRUZ;

CASTELLANO DOMINGUEZ;

CRECENCIANO GARCIA;

PATRICIA GARCIA; JUAN

MANUEL GONZALEZ; ANTONIO

HERNANDEZ; ISRAEL

HERNANDEZ; SOPHIA LANDERO;

ERIC LEDESMA; GUILLERMINA

MARTINEZ; INES MUNOZ; MARIA

NUNEZ; JONATHAN OLSON;

NILLER PINTO; PETER RAMIREZ;

ROBERTO RAMIREZ; JOSE R.

RECINOS; JOSE ALBERTO

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 14
-15-

RODRIGUEZ; MARIA GONZALEZ

ROMERO; NANCY ROMERO;

HECTOR SALDIVAR; SIMEON

SALDIVAR; ELISEO R.

SANDOVAL; JOAQUIN SANTOYA;

BRENDA TERRAZAS-LEYVA;

JESUS H. TERRAZAS; MARIA L.

TERRAZAS; HECTOR VALDEZ;

JESUS VALLEJO; GUADALUPE

ZUNIGA; MARIA BERTHA

(BAZAN) CURTIS; MARIA GAMEZ;

SULEMA JIMINEZ; JOHN R.

JUAREZ; CARLOS ROLVERA;

NATALIA AMAYA; JOSE

CARMONA; MARIA CARMONA;

SARAFIN CLARO; ARCADIO

FIGUEROA; JUANA FUENTES;

RAMON GOMEZ; NICOLAS

GUTIERREZ; MARIA G. GUZMAN;

MARIA GUZMAN; ADRIAN

HERNANDEZ; ARMANDO

HERNANDEZ; RAMON

HERNANDEZ; TERESA

HERNANDEZ; JOSE M.

HERNANDEZ-TORRES; ADRIAN

LEON; ESTEVAN LUNA; JOSE

LUNA; ERICA JUDITH MAJALCA;

ROSA MARKOTTE; FELIPE

MEDINA; JUAN MEDINA;

CONSUELO MOLINA MEZA;

AMPARA NUNEZ; MARIA

ONTIVEROS; MARIA CARMEN

PEREZ; JUAN MORENO;

FILIBERTO SANCHEZ; SERGIO

VERA; SAUL SANCHEZ; ROSA

VELASQUEZ; YENNY VENTURA;

MAXIMINO VIVIDOR; MARIA

CRISTINA ZARAGOZA; MARIA

HERNDANDEZ ADAME; RAUL

AGURRE; CECILIA CHAVEZ;

EVANGELINA CRUZ; JOSE A.

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 15
-16-

CRUZ; ALICIA DELGADO;

WILLIAM A. DUCOS; ADAN

FERREL; ETELVINA GARCIA;

JOEL GARCIA; ROCENDA GOUZ;

ROCENDA GOUX; JESUS

GUEVARA; ANTONIA

HERNANDEZ; MANUELA C.

HERNANDEZ; WESCESLAO

HERNANDEZ; FERNANDO LEOS;

DORALIA LIRA; VIDAL MADERA;

ROSA MAJALIA; ROSALVA

MARTINEZ; JAVIER MORALES;

ANATOLIO NUNEZ; DANIEL

NUNEZ; MARTIMIANA NUNEZ;

ATENOJENES MELGAREJO

RAMOS; RUBEN RAYAS; MARIA

C. RINCONS; CIPRIANA

RODRIGUEZ; EDUARDO

RODRIGUEZ; JOSE J. RODIQUEZ;

ERNEST DE LA ROSA; JOSE

HERNAND SANDOBAL; JUANA

SEIJAS; LEOBARDO TREJO;

RONALDO VAILLANT; ALBERTO

GONZALES; ROXANNE GAYLE

GUEBARA; BENITA LOZANO;

MARIBEL RENTERIA; RENEE D.

CANNON; ROBERT R. KRUMME;

CONNIE J. MASENTHIN; DORINDA

SNYDER; RIBOERTO ARVIZU,

individually and on behalf of a class of

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

TYSON FOODS, INC.;

TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 16
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

-17-

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

(D.C. No. 06-CV-2198-JWL)

Submitted on the briefs:*

Joel M. Cohn, Michael J. Mueller, Evangeline C. Paschal, Christopher M.

Egleson, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, D.C., for

Defendants-Appellants.

George A. Hanson, Eric L. Dirks, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Kansas City,

Missouri, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Before MURPHY, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Defendants-appellants Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

(collectively, “Tyson”) appeal from the district court’s interlocutory order

denying their motion for partial summary judgment. We ordered the parties to

submit briefs addressing whether this appeal should be dismissed on the ground

that the order appealed from was not final. Tyson argues that we have

jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 17
-18-

interlocutory order had the practical effect of modifying an injunction that had

been entered against its predecessor-in-interest in another case, to which Tyson

was now subject. Tyson’s argument is that (1) the injunction in question requires

it to comply with a certain provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

(“FLSA”), (2) the interlocutory order denying summary judgment changed how

that provision of FLSA is interpreted in the district, and (3) the interlocutory

order therefore had the practical effect of modifying the injunction. We disagree. 

Because we hold that the interlocutory order had no precedential effect and could

not have modified the injunction, we dismiss the appeal.

I.

Consideration of our jurisdiction over this appeal therefore requires

analysis of the interplay between the previous lawsuit in which the injunction was

entered and the present lawsuit. The previous lawsuit was brought more than

fifteen years ago against IBP, Inc., a company that slaughtered cattle and swine

and processed and packaged the beef and pork. It was brought by Robert Reich,

the Secretary of the Department of Labor (“Reich Case”) under the FLSA. The

second lawsuit is the class-action case presently before us in which the numerous

plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class, have accused Tyson, also in the

business of slaughtering cattle and swine and processing and packaging beef and

pork, of, among other wrongs, violating the FLSA.

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 18
-19-

In the first phase of the Reich Case, see Reich v. IBP, Inc. (Reich I),

820 F. Supp. 1315 (D. Kan. 1993), the district court held that the time spent by

the IBP employees donning and doffing of standard protective gear (hard hats,

ear plugs, safety footwear and eyewear) (“Standard Gear”), and donning and

doffing sanitary outergarments, was not time for which those employees had to be

paid under FLSA. The district court, however, also held that the time spent by

the IBP knife-wielding employees donning and doffing specialized protective

clothing and gear was compensable.

Following certification by the trial court under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), this

court upheld the district court’s ruling that the donning and doffing of the

outergarments and Standard Gear was not compensable. See Reich v. IBP, Inc.

(“Reich II”), 38 F.3d 1123, 1125 (10th Cir. 1994). We held that donning and

doffing Standard Gear was not “work” under the FLSA. Id. at 1125-26. We held

that the time spent donning and doffing the protective outergarments also was not

compensable because it was “essentially time used to change clothes” and because

the wearing of such outergarments was primarily for the employees’ benefit and,

therefore, not “integral and indispensable” to IBP’s operations. Id. at 1126. 

In 1996, in the second phase of the Reich Case, the district court entered an

injunction (Reich Injunction) ordering IBP to not employ any employee “for

workweeks longer than 40 hours without compensating such employee for his or

her employment in excess of 40 hours per workweek at a rate not less than one

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 19
-20-

and one-half times the regular rate at which he or she is employed.” Aplt. App.,

Vol. II at 470; Reich v. IBP, Inc., No 88-2171-EEO, slip op. at 2 (D. Kan. July 30,

1996).

After the Reich Case, IBP and Tyson merged and Tyson succeeded to IBP’s

assets and liabilities. As noted above, Tyson’s argument to this court is that the

district court’s order denying its motion for partial summary judgment had the

practical effect of modifying the above portion of the Reich Injunction. 

Therefore, despite the fact that appeals from denials of summary judgment are

generally dismissed on jurisdictional grounds as appeals from interlocutory

orders, Tyson argues that here it is appealing an interlocutory order modifying an

injunction, over which we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

Tyson argued in its motion for summary judgment that judgment should be

entered in its favor as to any plaintiff's claim for compensation for time spent

donning and doffing sanitary outergarments and Standard Gear, because Reich II

shut the door on claims that those activities were compensable. The district court

denied summary judgment on the ground that the Supreme Court’s decision in

IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), cast doubt on the analysis behind our

holding in Reich II. The district court held that summary judgment was

inappropriate because it was “convinced that the Circuit, if given the opportunity

to revisit the issues in Reich [II], would approach its analysis of the pertinent

issues differently in light of Alvarez regardless of whether the Circuit ultimately

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 20
-21-

reached the same conclusions concerning compensability.” Garcia v. Tyson

Foods, Inc., No. 06-2198-JWL, slip op. at 11 (D. Kan. Feb. 16, 2007). The

district court held that it believed this court “might reach a different conclusion

on compensability if analyzed in the context of Alvarez,” but that even if we did

not, further analysis would be required. Id. (emphasis added). The district court,

therefore, did not rule that the time spent donning and doffing sanitary

outergarments and Standard Gear was compensable after Alvarez, but simply that

Reich II no longer definitively decided the question.

Tyson argues on appeal that the district court’s order denying summary

judgment “fundamentally changed the FLSA requirements that are incorporated

by reference in the injunction.” Aplt. Br. in Support of Jurisdiction at 8. In other

words, it argues: (1) that the Reich Injunction ordered IBP, and now Tyson, to

pay its employees–now and into the future–for overtime at a rate not less than one

and one-half times the regular rate, (2) how much time and overtime an employee

works can only be determined by reference to what work is compensable under

present FLSA law, and (3) the district court’s order denying summary judgment

“changed the [present FLSA] law and thus the injunction itself.” Id. at 11. 

It argues: 

Prior to the district court’s order, Reich [II] foreclosed any

possibility that Tyson could be charged with contempt for failing to

compensate employees at non-union facilities for donning and

doffing of standard gear and sanitary overgarments that Reich [II]

found to be noncompensable. The district court’s decision here,

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 21
-22-

however, opens the possibility that the DOL could seek contempt

charges against Tyson for the very acts that were deemed

noncompensable in Reich [II].

Id. at 12.

As will be explained in detail below, we disagree that the district court

order at issue here had any practical effect on the Reich Injunction. While it is

certainly arguable that the Supreme Court’s decision in Alvarez had a practical

effect on the Reich Injunction, that is not our concern at this point in time.

II.

“As a general rule, only final decisions of the district court are appealable.” 

Pimentel & Sons Guitar Makers, Inc. v. Pimentel, 477 F.3d 1151, 1153 (10th Cir. 

2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1291). Nevertheless, as noted above, under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(a)(1), the courts of appeal for the various circuits have jurisdiction over

“[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States, . . . or of the

judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving

injunctions.” Here, Tyson claims that the district court’s order denying summary

judgment in this case modified the Reich Injunction. 

The parties agree that the order denying summary judgment did not

expressly modify the Reich Injunction; it was, after all, entered in a separate legal

proceeding. But Tyson argues that the order had the practical effect of modifying

the injunction. As discussed above, Tyson’s argument has two premises: (1) that

the Reich Injunction ordered it to comply with a certain provision of the FLSA

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 22
-23-

(i.e., properly compensating employees for overtime), and (2) that the district

court’s order denying summary judgment changed what activities are

compensable under the FLSA in the district, thus changing how much time its

employees are considered to be working and having the practical effect of

modifying the Reich Injunction.

A.

As to Tyson’s first premise, we note that following the district court’s order

denying partial summary judgment, Tyson filed a motion under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(e) asking the district court to alter or amend its denial. In its

motion, Tyson asked the court to reverse its decision or, if it decided not to do so,

to “acknowledge it ha[d] modified the [Reich] injunction, either explicitly or as a

practical matter, by ruling that the standard items and ‘sanitary outergarments’ are

no longer non-compensable as a matter of law.” Aplt. App., Vol. II at 340. In its

reply to plaintiffs-appellees’ response to the motion, Tyson clarified its claim. It

argued that “[b]y eliminating a long-standing defense that certain clothing

items . . . are non-compensable as a matter of law, the Court has effectively

modified the Reich injunction’s admonition that IBP was to take action consistent

with the ‘activities found [by Judge O’Connor and the Tenth Circuit] to be

compensable under the Act.’” Id. at 382-83 (quoting Reich, No. 88-2171-EEO,

slip op. at 3) (second alteration in original). Tyson argued that the district court’s

order denying summary judgment “wholesale eliminated defenses that both the

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 23
-24-

[Department of Labor] and IBP clearly understood were available in light of the

Tenth Circuit’s liability decision in Reich [II].” Id. at 383 n.2.

In denying Tyson’s motion, the district court held “[t]he court . . . did not

modify the Reich injunction and its [order denying summary judgment] did not

have the practical effect of modifying the injunction.” Garcia v. Tyson Foods,

Inc., No. 06-2198-JWL, slip op. at 3 (D. Kan. May 2, 2007). But the district

court never reached Tyson’s second premise, i.e., that the court’s order changed

the law regarding what activities are compensable under the FLSA in the district. 

Instead, the court determined that the Reich Injunction only compelled

compliance with the FLSA in regard to the activities that the Reich court found to

be compensable. The court held that

[n]one of the provisions of the injunction addresses the donning and

doffing of standard clothing or any other activity that the Reich court

concluded was non-compensable. In fact, the injunction speaks only

to those activities found by the Reich court to be compensable and

the injunction directs defendants to take certain actions with respect

to only those activities.

Id.

Nevertheless, the district court’s determination that the Reich Injunction

would not compel compensation for the activities found non-compensable in

Reich I and Reich II is not binding on this court. Therefore, we will accept,

purely for the sake of argument, Tyson’s contention that the Reich Injunction is

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 24
-25-

properly interpreted as a general order to properly pay overtime under the FLSA,

however that statute might be later interpreted.

B.

As to Tyson’s second premise, i.e., that the order denying summary

judgment had the practical effect of modifying the Reich Injunction, we have held

that “courts of appeals insist on looking beyond the captions and vocabulary

attached to district court orders to determine the actual, practical effect of an

order before exercising appellate jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1).” Pimentel,

477 F.3d at 1153. Thus, “[w]hether an order . . . modifies an injunction is

determined by its actual, practical effect.” Id. at 1154. When a district court’s

order does not expressly or technically modify an injunction, but has the practical

effect of modifying an injunction, this court has jurisdiction where an appellant

will suffer “a serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence” that “can be effectively

challenged only by immediate appeal.” Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 566, 569

(10th Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). Citing to these propositions, Tyson argues

that the district court’s order “fundamentally changed” the state of FLSA law. 

Aplt. Br. in Support of Jurisdiction at 8.

But Tyson does not explain how a district court order denying summary

judgment could accomplish this feat. First, we note that the argument presented

by plaintiffs-appellees to the district court in the present case was based on the

Supreme Court’s decision in Alvarez. Thus, since the time Alvarez was handed

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 25
-26-

down, the Reich Injunction has likewise been susceptible to the argument put

forth in this case, i.e., that Alvarez undermined this court’s analysis in Reich II. 

Consequently, in arguing that the order denying summary judgment changed the

law from its previous state, Tyson must be contending that this order would in

some way bind the Kansas district court in later contempt proceedings regarding

the Reich Injunction. We do not see any reason the district court would be so

bound, and Tyson has not provided any.

First, “it is clear that there is no such thing as ‘the law of the district.’” 

Threadgill v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 928 F.2d 1366, 1371 (3d Cir. 1991). 

“[D]istrict court decisions cannot be treated as authoritative on issues of law. The

reasoning of district judges is of course entitled to respect, but the decision of a

district judge cannot be a controlling precedent.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Moglia,

330 F.3d 942, 949 (7th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted).

Nor would claim or issue preclusion apply in this case as both require the

issuance of a final judgment. See MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821, 831

(10th Cir. 2005) (“Under Tenth Circuit law, claim preclusion applies when

[certain] elements exist [including] a final judgment on the merits in an earlier

action.); Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 414 (2000) (“[I]ssue preclusion

attaches only ‘[w]hen an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined

by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 26
-27-

judgment.’” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27, p. 250 (1982)

(second alteration in original)).

Although the district court’s order denying summary judgment might have

sent a signal that a plausible argument could be made that Alvarez undermined

Reich II to some extent, this is not a modification of the Reich Injunction. It is

merely notice that one district court judge, in an interlocutory order, found not

that time spent donning and doffing the Standard Gear and protective

overgarments was compensable after Alvarez, but simply that it might be and that

this court’s analysis would have to be different. This is not sufficient grounds for

jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1).

Section 1292(a) was intended to carve out only a limited exception to

the final-judgment rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the long-established

policy against piecemeal appeals. Consequently, the Supreme Court

has cautioned that the statute should be narrowly construed to ensure

that appeal as of right under § 1292(a)(1) will be available only in

limited circumstances.

Pimentel, 477 F.3d at 1153 (citations, quotations, and brackets omitted). 

A possible modification in the legal community’s speculative expectation

regarding how a certain district court might read Alvarez’ effect on Reich II

is not reason enough for this court to exercise jurisdiction. In the end,

if the interpretation of FLSA has changed since the Reich Injunction was

entered, and if that change therefore had the practical effect of modifying the

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 27
-28-

Reich Injunction, that change was wrought by Alvarez and not by the district

court’s order at issue here.

III.

The appeal is DISMISSED.

Appellate Case: 07-3162 Document: 01012975250 Date Filed: 07/28/2008 Page: 28