Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03613/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03613-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 Plaintiffs entitle their motion “Motion for

Reconsideration.” However, under Civil L.R. 7-9, a party may not

file a motion to reconsider without leave of the court. The Court

nevertheless considers the arguments posed in Plaintiffs’ motion. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL FLORES and ALEJANDRO SICAJAU,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

EI MAINTENANCE COMPANY and KEN IRWIN,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-3613 CW

ORDER AMENDING

COURT’S ORDER OF

MARCH 18, 2010

(Docket No. 34)

Plaintiffs Manuel Flores and Alejandro Sicajau have filed a

motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider.1 They ask the

Court to reconsider its March 18, 2010 Order to the extent that it

requires them to file declarations indicating their consent to sue

within three days of the date of that Order. The Court directed

Plaintiffs to do so based on Defendants EI Maintenance Company and

Ken Irwin’s argument, contained in their motion to dismiss, that 29

U.S.C. § 216(b) mandated that consents be filed. 

In relevant part, Civil Local Rule 7-9 allows a party to ask a

court to reconsider an interlocutory order if the party can show: 

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was

presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory

order for which reconsideration is sought. The party

also must show that in the exercise of reasonable

diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not

know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory

Case 4:09-cv-03613-CW Document 35 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

order; or . . . 

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented

to the Court before such interlocutory order.

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs failed to raise in their

opposition brief the arguments that they present in the current

motion. Therefore, under Civil L.R. 7-9, the Court need not

entertain their request to reconsider. Nevertheless, the Court

considers Plaintiffs’ arguments and revises its prior order as

explained below. 

Other circuit courts have explicitly stated that the consent

requirement contained in § 216(b) applies only to collective

actions. See, e.g., Harkins v. Riverboat Svcs., Inc., 385 F.3d

1099, 1101 (7th Cir. 2004); Allen v. Atl. Richfield Co., 724 F.2d

1131, 1135 (5th Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs have explicitly stated that

they are not pursuing a collective action, and their First Amended

Complaint does not indicate otherwise. 

Accordingly, the Court amends its Order of March 18, 2010

(Docket No. 33) and withdraws its direction to Plaintiffs to file

declarations stating their consent to sue. To reflect this change,

the Court strikes from that Order Section I and the relevant

portions of lines four through nine on page six. Defendant EI

Maintenance Company shall file their answer within twenty-one days

of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

March 29, 2010

Case 4:09-cv-03613-CW Document 35 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 2