Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07784/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07784-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
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

27

28

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAUL RIVERAMENTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAY FIBERGLASS & PRECAST

MANUFACTURING et al.

Defendants.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-7784 PVT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On November 30, 2007 this court issued an “Order Vacating Stipulation and Order of

Dismissal” in which the court set a deadline of December 14, 2007 for the parties to file either a

statement supporting the fairness of the settlement or else a stipulation of dismissal under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). As of the date of this order, the parties have failed to file either

document. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than January 22, 2008, either party may file a

declaration showing cause why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice. 

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or “Act”) requires employers to pay their

employees time and one-half for work exceeding forty hours per week. See 29 U.S.C.

§ 207(a)(1). An employee’s claims under the FLSA are non-waivable, and thus may not be

Case 5:06-cv-07784-PVT Document 22 Filed 01/08/08 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

 “House Report No. 101-664” refers to House Report No. 101-664, P.l. 101-433, Older 1

Workers Benefit Protection Act, H.R. Rep. 101-664, H.R. Rep. No. 664, 101st Cong., 2nd Sess.

1990, 1990 WL 200383 (1990). This report reflects congress’ continued intent that FLSA claims

may not be waived or compromised without supervision of either the Secretary of Labor or a

district court.

settled without supervision of either the Secretary of Labor or a district court. See Yue Zhou v.

Wang's Restaurant, 2007 WL 172308 at * 1 (N.D.Cal. Jan 17, 2007); see also, Lynn’s Food

Stores, Inc. v. United States, et al., 679 F. 2d 1350, 1352-53 (11 Cir. 1982); and House Report th

No. 101-664.1

Because the parties have not made any showing of fairness, dismissing the case with

prejudice would amount to allowing the employee to waive his claims without the supervision of

either the Secretary of Labor or the court. However, dismissal is warranted where a Plaintiff fails

to prosecute his case. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b). Based on the file herein, it

thus appears dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice is warranted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is without prejudice to the parties filing a

stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) on or before January

22, 2008.

Dated: 1/7/08

_________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-07784-PVT Document 22 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 2