Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-md-01541/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-md-01541-0/pdf.json

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

WO

I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In re Allstate Insurance Company ) MDL No. 1541

Fair Labor Standards Litigation )

 )

) Ruben H. Montano, ) No. CV-04-0014-PHX-PGR

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )) ORDER and OPINION Allstate Insurance Company, et al., ))

Defendants. ) )

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Montano's Motion to Amend his Class

and Collective Action Complaint for Overtime Wages and Injunctive Relief Under

the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §210 et seq.) (doc. #18). The

only portion of the motion left to be resolved is Montano’s request that he be

allowed to file an amended complaint expanding his current proposed FLSA class

of all salaried claims representatives employed by the defendants in Arizona to a

proposed class of all such persons employed anywhere in the United States

Case 2:03-md-01541-PGR Document 186 Filed 07/11/07 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

1

 Montano’s motion also included a request that he be allowed to add a state

law claim for violation of Arizona wage laws pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-353 and § 23-355. 

Montano withdrew that request in his reply memoranda (doc. #126), conceding that the

proposed claim was barred by the applicable Arizona statute of limitations.

2

 The timeliness of Montano’s motion is an issue inasmuch as the Scheduling

Order entered by Judge Browning prior to this case becoming a member case of this

MDL action (doc. #17 in CV 02-609-TUC-WDB) required Montano to file a motion for

class certification almost 71⁄2 months before Montano filed the instant motion to amend.

The Court concludes that it need not resolve the timeliness issue given its

disposition of Montano’s motion.

3

 To the extent that Montano argues that the amendment should be granted due

to some speculative economic advantage to the nationwide class by the participation of

his counsel, the only Arizona attorney of record in this MDL action, the Court is

unpersuaded - Montano’s counsel’s participation in the MDL action is not dependent on

Montano’s case being a nationwide class action. 

-2-

except in the State of California.1 The defendants oppose Montano’s motion, as

do the plaintiffs in all of the other member cases.

Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the Court, in the exercise of its

sound discretion, finds that the motion should be denied as prejudicial to the

defendants. The requested amendment, even if deemed to be timely filed by the

Court, has been rendered pointless inasmuch as the objective sought by the

amendment has in effect already been accomplished given the Court’s order

(doc. #117) conditionally certifying a nationwide class of adjusters (with the

exception of those in California) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).2

 The granting of

the motion would thus only waste the resources of the defendants, as well as the

resources of all others involved in this action.3

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:03-md-01541-PGR Document 186 Filed 07/11/07 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

-3-

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Montano's Motion to Amend his Class and

Collective Action Complaint for Overtime Wages and Injunctive Relief Under the

Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §210 et seq.) (doc. #18) is denied.

DATED this 11th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:03-md-01541-PGR Document 186 Filed 07/11/07 Page 3 of 3