Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04495/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04495-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TARA SHAIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARVEST MANAGEMENT SUB LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-4495-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DECERTIFY COLLECTIVE ACTION

On October 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed the above-entitled action alleging violations of 

the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“FLSA”), and California’s

wage and hour laws and unfair competition laws. Plaintiffs filed a first amended 

complaint on December 15, 2014, and defendant Harvest Management Sub LLC filed an 

answer on January 2, 2015. 

On April 13, 2015, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for 

conditional certification of a nationwide FLSA collective action. Plaintiffs now seek an 

order decertifying the collective action, primarily on the basis that the members of the 

collective action are not “similarly situated.” Defendant has filed a response in support of 

decertification, stating that it agrees with plaintiffs’ position, and adding that the parties 

have agreed that plaintiffs may move for decertification and that once the collective action 

is decertified, individual settlements will be formalized with the named plaintiffs and the 

few eligible class members who had opted in.

Courts in the Ninth Circuit have adopted a two-stage certification procedure in 

FLSA cases. See, e.g., Leuthold v. Destination Am., Inc., 224 F.R.D. 462, 466 (N.D. Cal. 

Case 4:14-cv-04495-PJH Document 101 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2004); Wynn v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 234 F.Supp. 2d 1067, 1082-84 (C.D. Cal. 2002). At the 

first stage, the district court approves conditional certification upon a minimal showing 

that the members of the proposed class are “similarly situated”; at the second stage, 

usually initiated by a motion to decertify filed by the defendant, the court engages in a 

more searching review. Leuthold, 224 F.R.D. at 467. 

Where the defendant files a motion to decertify, it is the plaintiffs' burden to 

"provide substantial evidence to demonstrate that they are similarly situated.” Redd v. 

Cnty of Orange, 266 F.R.D. 446, 449 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Here, however, it is plaintiffs who 

have filed the motion to decertify. They have addressed the relevant factors, but 

defendant does not oppose the motion. Thus, the court finds it unnecessary to conduct 

the usual review. The motion is GRANTED. The August 3, 2016, date previously noticed 

for the hearing of the motion is VACATED.

The court will hear the parties’ motion for approval of the individual settlements on 

Wednesday, October 5, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. The motion shall be filed no later than August 

24, 2016. The parties shall also be prepared to discuss the status of the remaining state 

law claims at the October 5, 2016 hearing.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2016

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-04495-PJH Document 101 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 2