Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02268/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02268-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MINERVA ABUBAKAR, et al

Plaintiffs,

v. NO. CIV. S-06-2268 LKK/EFB

COUNTY OF SOLANO,

O R D E R

Defendant.

 /

This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action brought by

various correctional officers against the County of Solano.

Pending before the court is a motion for leave to file additional

consent to be included as a plaintiff forms. Plaintiffs seek to

add 23 plaintiffs to this action. The court resolves the matter

upon the parties papers and after oral argument. For the reasons

explained below, the court grants the motion.

I. Background

On October 12, 2006, plaintiffs filed a complaint, brought on

behalf of the named plaintiffs and others similarly situated,

Case 2:06-cv-02268-LKK -EFB Document 93 Filed 02/27/08 Page 1 of 5
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

2

alleging that defendant violated various FLSA provisions. An

amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2007. On May 16, 2007,

the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to provide facilitated notice

to potential additional plaintiffs in accordance with HoffmanLaroche, Inc. V. Sperling, 493 U.S. 16 (1989). The court’s order

provided that “to be timely filed, Consent to Be Included as a

Plaintiff forms must be filed with the court by July 27, 2007 and

may only be extended upon a showing of good cause.” Under the

FLSA, an employee must file a consent form with the district court;

it is not enough to be named as a plaintiff in the complaint. 29

U.S.C. § 256; see Nevada Employees’ Ass’n v. Bryan, 916 F.2d 1384,

1391 (9th Cir. 1990). By July 27, 2007, approximately 160

plaintiffs filed consent forms to be included as plaintiffs in this

action. No depositions have yet been taken by either side, and

discovery is set to close on November 8, 2008.

Plaintiffs’ motion seeks leave to file 23 additional consent

forms. Five of the named plaintiffs have not filed such consent

forms. In addition, 18 other individuals retained plaintiffs’

counsel after July 27, 2007 to either move to have them included

in this action or file a separate but identical action on their

behalf. In the alternative, if the court denies the motion,

plaintiffs seek to dismiss the five named plaintiffs without

prejudice so that they may pursue their claims in a separate

action.

II. Analysis

Plaintiffs argue that permitting the late joinder of the 23

Case 2:06-cv-02268-LKK -EFB Document 93 Filed 02/27/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

individuals at issue serves the interests of judicial economy,

convenience to the parties, and reducing litigation expenses

because, if the court were to deny the present motion, the 23

individuals would file a separate action alleging identical

claims. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), it is

likely that the court would then consolidate the actions as they

“involve a common question of law or fact.” Contrary to

defendant’s characterization of this possibility as speculative

and premature, it is entirely foreseeable.

Several courts, recognizing this risk, have permitted the

late filing of consent forms in FLSA actions. See Raper v.

State of Iowa, 65 F.R.D. 89, 91 (S.D. Iowa 1996) (“Were the

Court to deny the motion, the additional plaintiffs state they

would be compelled to file a separate action which, in all

probability, would be consolidated with this one. . . . There is

no need to encourage multiple actions on the same subject.”);

Monroe v. United Air Lines, Inc., 94 F.R.D. 304, 305 (N.D. Ill.

1982) (“It should be remembered that in at least some of the

cases the alternative may be to force the filing of individual

lawsuits --scarcely productive of economy either for the

litigants or for the courts.”).

Defendant correctly notes that other courts have only

permitted late filed consent forms where the individuals first

demonstrated good cause. See, e.g., Ayers v. SGS Control

Servs., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76539, at *14-16 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

(requiring good cause for untimely consent forms); Camp v.

Case 2:06-cv-02268-LKK -EFB Document 93 Filed 02/27/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Progressive Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14094 (E.D. La. 2003)

(“Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for the court to modify

its scheduling order to permit consents mailed after that date

to be filed.”). These courts, however, did not consider the

possibility that a separate action might be filed; indeed, this

risk may not have been a realistic possibility in those cases. 

Here, however, the 23 individuals have indicated their

willingness to file a separate action, and their numerosity

makes it credible that they may be willing to take such a course

of action.

Defendant argues that it will be prejudiced by the joinder

of the additional plaintiffs. It argues that its potential

liability would increase by 15% (based on the addition of 23

plaintiffs to the 155 current plaintiffs), that the issue of

whether plaintiffs are similarly situated will be more

complicated, that there would be even more tolling dates for

statute of limitations purposes, and that its discovery costs

will rise. But all of these consequences will be the same if a

separate action is filed. The only difference is that they will

occur in the context of a different lawsuit, which, as noted

above, will likely be consolidated with this one.

Based on the interests of judicial economy and convenience

to the parties, the court will permit the 23 individuals at

issue (and only these individuals) to file consent forms by

March 31, 2008.

////

Case 2:06-cv-02268-LKK -EFB Document 93 Filed 02/27/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

III. Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file additional consent to

be included as a plaintiff forms (Dock. No. 85) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 26, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02268-LKK -EFB Document 93 Filed 02/27/08 Page 5 of 5