Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02096-0/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

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JESUS NAVARRO; JESUS MURILLO;

ROGELIO PERES BARAJAS; and

RUBEN REYES, individually and on

behalf of other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

BEAN DRYWALL, INC., an Arizona

corporation; MICHAEL NELSON BEAN;

PATRICIA ANN BEAN; MICHAEL

SALES; CONTRACTORS BONDING &

INSURANCE COMPANY, a Washington

corporation; DOES 1 through 50, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-02096-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Who Failed

to Appear for Deposition (Dkt. # 131), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Five

Non-Participating Plaintiffs (Dkt. # 155), Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

(Dkt. # 133), Plaintiffs’ Response to these motions, which the Court partially construes as

a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. # 162), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss NonParticipating and Duplicative Plaintiffs (Dkt. # 181), and Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss Non-Participating and Duplicative Plaintiffs, which the Court partially

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 1 of 12
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 -

construes as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. # 190). The Court will address each

motion in turn.

Plaintiffs Jesus Navarro, Jesus Murillo, Rogelio Perez, and Ruben Reyes filed this

civil action against their employer, Defendant Bean Drywall, on behalf of themselves and

other individuals similarly situated. (Dkt. # 21.) They claim that they have been “denied

required wages, and/or have been terminated or discharged and denied wages owed to them

by Employer Defendants in violation of Arizona Revised Statute 23-353.” (Dkt. # 12 at 7-8.)

Since the original complaint was filed, a large number of additional plaintiffs have opted into

this lawsuit. (See, e.g., Dkt. # 32.) The motions before the Court seek to narrow the class

of Plaintiffs to those who are complying with required discovery requests.

DISCUSSION

I. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs Who Failed to Appear for Depositions

On March 11, 2009, Defendants served Notices of Deposition upon twenty-two opt-in

plaintiffs. Of the twenty-two served, the following plaintiffs failed to appear for their

scheduled depositions: Nicolas Ruiz Garcia (Dkt. # 99), Gustavo Ruiz Garcia (Dkt. # 100),

Juan Carlos “Garcia” Rodriguez (Dkt. # 102), Placido Alonso Gutierrez (Dkt. # 107),

Rigoberto Bretado (Dkt. # 110), and Enrique Lopez (Dkt. # 111). On March 11, 2009,

March 13, 2009, April 17, 2009, April 30, 2009, and May 19, 2009, Defendants served

Notices of Deposition on the following additional opt-in plaintiffs: Aurelio Martinez Salgado

(Dkt. # 117), Baltasar Morino-Morales (Dkt. # 109), Arturo Blanco Chavez (Dkt. # 145),

Mario Villegas Perez (Dkt. # 145), Pablo Alejo Aguilar (Dkt. # 145), Geovanny Ayala (Dkt.

# 138), Nicolas Martinez (Dkt. # 159), Salvador Santana (Dkt. # 146), Radiel Torales (Dkt.

# 144), and Armando Lujan (Dkt. # 145). These opt-in plaintiffs also failed to appear at their

scheduled depositions. Defendants now move to dismiss these sixteen plaintiffs with

prejudice pursuant to Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. ## 131, 155,

181.)

Under Rule 37(d)(1), a court may, upon motion, sanction a party for failing to appear

for its own deposition. The available sanctions include “dismissing the action or proceeding

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 2 of 12
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

- 3 -

in whole or in part.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). Generally, when deciding whether

dismissal is a proper sanction, a court should consider: “1) the public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation; 2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 3) the risk of prejudice to

the party seeking sanctions; 4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

and 5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” See Valley Eng’rs, Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co.,

158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Stafford v. City of San Diego, No. 06-CV-0398

H(BLM), 2007 WL 2462133, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2007) (applying this standard to a

Rule 37(b) motion). However, both parties have agreed that dismissal is the proper sanction

for the sixteen opt-in plaintiffs. (See Dkt. # 162 at 2 (“As to all pending motions . . .[w]e do

not oppose dismissal without prejudice of those plaintiffs.”); see also Dkt. # 190 at 1

(“Plaintiffs agree to the dismissal without prejudice of the following plaintiffs . . .).) The only

remaining question is whether the opt-in plaintiffs will be dismissed with prejudice as

requested by Defendants. 

The fifth factor illustrates the general legal trend encouraging courts to employ the

least drastic sanction that will effectively correct a party’s noncompliance. See, e.g.,

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The district judge should first

consider less drastic alternatives . . . .”). “What is most critical for case-dispositive sanctions

. . . is whether the discovery violations threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the

case.” Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057 (quoting Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Theoren, 913 F.2d

1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, motions to dismiss with prejudice are generally

granted where the interference with discovery involves acts of bad faith or intentional

deception. See, e.g., id. at 1051 (upholding a district court’s order dismissing an action with

prejudice where the defendants were found to have intentionally withheld a “smoking gun”

document from a discovery production). Here, Plaintiffs assert that the failure to comply

with the discovery requests was most likely due to “the transitory nature of construction

workers,” which has made it impossible for Plaintiffs’ counsel to notify the sixteen named

plaintiffs of the dates and times of their depositions. (Dkt. # 162 at 2.) Additionally, the

noncompliance with Defendants’ discovery requests here have not “threaten[ed] to interfere

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 3 of 12
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

- 4 -

with the rightful decision of the case.” Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057 (finding that the

withholding of “smoking gun” document during discovery was the type of act that would

interfere with the rightful decision of a case, and upholding the district court’s order

dismissing the action with prejudice). Defendants argue that if these plaintiffs are not

dismissed with prejudice, they would be “free to initiate litigation, inflict costs and attorney’s

fees upon [D]efendants, violate the discovery obligations as parties to litigation, . . . and . .

. start the process all over again.” (Dkt. # 178 at 4.) However, Defendants offer no evidence

of bad faith, dishonesty, or obstruction. Therefore, the following sixteen opt-in plaintiffs

will be dismissed without prejudice from this action: Nicolas Ruiz Garcia, Gustavo Ruiz

Garcia, Juan Carlos “Garcia” Rodriguez, Placido Alonso Gutierrez, Rigoberto Bretado,

Enrique Lopez, Aurelio Martinez Salgado, Baltasar Morino-Morales, Arturo Blanco Chavez,

Mario Villegas Perez, Pablo Alejo Aguilar, Geovanny Ayala, Nicolas Martinez, Salvador

Santana, Radiel Torales, and Armando Lujan.

II. Voluntary Dismissal of Additional Opt-In Plaintiffs Listed in Plaintiffs’

Responses

In their Responses, Plaintiffs consent to the dismissal without prejudice of an

additional six opt-in plaintiffs that were not included in Defendants’ motions. These

plaintiffs are: Carlos Cruz, Juan Jimenez, Jose Samuel R. Lopez, Ricardo Maldonado, Jr.,

Alejandro Rodriguez, and Juan Manuel Rodriguez. The Court construes their inclusion on

these lists as motions to voluntarily dismiss these six opt-in plaintiffs. Under Rule 41(a)(1)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs voluntary dismissal by a plaintiff,

“[u]nless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). As such, the motions are granted and the following six opt-in plaintiffs

are hereby dismissed without prejudice: Carlos Cruz, Juan Jimenez, Jose Samuel R. Lopez,

Ricardo Maldonado, Jr., Alejandro Rodriguez, and Juan Manuel Rodriguez.

III. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Defendants served requests for admission upon a number of opt-in plaintiffs, the first

of which stated: “Admit that you have never been employed by Bean Drywall.” (Dkt. # 134

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 4 of 12
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

 The four remaining requests for admissions are as follows: 

(2) Admit that, during your employment with Bean Drywall,

you never worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek . .

. ; (3) Admit that you are not owed any overtime wages for

hours worked during your employment with Bean Drywall . . .

; (4) Admit that you are not owed any compensation by Bean

Drywall for travel time you performed during your employment

with Bean Drywall . . . ; [and] (5) Admit that Bean Drywall paid

you all wages owed to you no later than the end of your

employment with Bean Drywall or the next regular payday after

the end of your employment with Bean Drywall . . . .

(Dkt. # 134 at 21.)

- 5 -

Ex. 3 at 21.)1

 The following fifteen opt-in plaintiffs failed to respond to these requests for

admission, and Defendants now move for summary judgment against them: Victor Rodelo,

Alejandro Dominges, Alfredo Rodriguez, Emigidio Perez Torres, Jose Loya Sotelo, Juan

Gaspar, Luis Flores, Martin Tovar, Rafael Leyva Gutierrez, Raul Flores, Adan Rodriguez

Martinez, Alejandro Reyes Patino, Juan Jimenez Hernandez, Adan Morales Marquillo, and

Juan Ramirez. (Dkt. # 133 at 2.) 

Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable

to the nonmoving party, shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Requests for

admissions that go unanswered may be relied upon as a basis for summary judgment. See

Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007). Under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 36(a)(3), “a matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party

to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection

addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.” “A matter admitted under

this rule is conclusively established . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). 

Plaintiffs do not dispute that the fifteen named opt-in plaintiffs failed to respond to the

requests for admission. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 36(b), the fact that none of the

aforementioned opt-in plaintiffs have ever worked for Bean Drywall has been conclusively

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 5 of 12
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

- 6 -

established. Because the Complaint seeks to recover the overtime wages that Defendants

allegedly failed to pay its employees, it is necessary that the opt-in plaintiffs were once

employed by Defendants. In light of Rule 36, there is no genuine issue about the fact that

the fifteen opt-in plaintiffs have never worked for Bean Drywall, and, as a matter of law, they

cannot succeed in their legal claim against Defendants. Therefore, Defendants are entitled

to summary judgment against the following fifteen opt-in plaintiffs: Victor Rodelo,

Alejandro Dominges, Alfredo Rodriguez, Emigidio Perez Torres, Jose Loya Sotelo, Juan

Gaspar, Luis Flores, Martin Tovar, Rafael Leyva Gutierrez, Raul Flores, Adan Rodriguez

Martinez, Alejandro Reyes Patino, Juan Jimenez Hernandez, Adan Morales Marquillo, and

Juan Ramirez.

 The Court recognizes that the dismissal of some opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice

and the granting of summary judgment against others allows the former group the ability to

reassert claims against Defendants in the future, while the latter group will be barred from

doing so. See 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure

§ 2712 (3d ed. 1998) (“A summary judgment motion goes to the merits of the case and . . .

a granted motion operates to merge or bar the cause of action for purposes of claim and issue

preclusion.”). Rule 36 requests for admissions do not constitute discovery, “since [Rule 36]

presupposes that the party proceeding under it knows the facts . . . and merely wishes its

opponent to concede their genuineness.” 8A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 2253 (2d ed. 1994). Additionally, their purpose is not to

discover unknown activities in order to prove the elements of a claim at trial, but to “facilitate

proof with respect to issues that cannot be eliminated from the case, and, second, to narrow

the issues by eliminating those that can be.” Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th

Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court is not able to treat the failure to respond

to the requests for admissions as a failure to comply with a discovery request and impose

Rule 37(b) sanctions. Instead, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make clear that the

failure to respond to a request for admission within 30 days conclusively establishes the facts

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 6 of 12
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

- 7 -

contained therein that are not denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Summary judgment must

consequently be granted.

There have been cases in which parties have not responded to requests for admission

because they did not personally receive the requests. See, e.g., In Re Mack, 330 F. Supp 737

(S.D. Tex. 1970); Freed v. Plastic Packing Materials, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 550 (E.D. Pa. 1975).

In these cases, courts have generally held that 

all parties have an obligation to keep the Court advised of a

current address for the service of papers, either to counsel or to

the party directly. One who does not do so should not thereby

be able to foreclose an opposing party from taking full

advantage of the procedures which our Rules allow. 

Freed, 66 F.R.D. at 552. Here, the requests for admission were properly served upon the

opt-in plaintiffs’ attorney pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(1). Under Freed,

Defendants are not responsible for the personal receipt of each document by each individual

opt-in plaintiff. It is the responsibility of each opt-in plaintiff to participate actively in his

or her own lawsuit, part of which includes making all necessary persons aware of how he or

she may be contacted. As such, any argument for denying summary judgment based on the

opt-in plaintiffs’ failure to receive the requests for admission is invalid.

IV. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Duplicative Plaintiffs

Upon the submission of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum (Dkt. # 179),

Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Non-Participating and Duplicative Plaintiffs (Dkt.

# 181). In their Response (Dkt. #190), Plaintiffs argue that, instead of dismissing the

duplicative plaintiffs, their alphabetical reference labels should be “consolidated” so as to

avoid “any future confusion as [t]o the status of these plaintiffs.” (Dkt. # 190 at 2). 

Additionally, Plaintiffs consent to the “consolidation” of a number of duplicative opt-in

plaintiffs for which Defendants have requested dismissal. The Court adopts the Plaintiffs’

terminology and consolidates the following opt-in plaintiffs to which Plaintiffs have

consented: 

1. Juan Bermudez (AAAAA and N) shall be Juan Bermudez (N)

2. Cesar T. Perez (OOOO, IIIII, and XX) shall be Cesar T. Perez (XX)

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 7 of 12
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

 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Non-Participating and Duplicative Plaintiffs (Dkt.

# 181), lists Rogelio P. Reyes as both “PPPPP”and “F.” The Court understands this to be a

typographical error, as Plaintiff “F” is Rogelio Perez, who is a duplicate of “QQQQ.”

- 8 -

3. Rogelio P. Reyes (III and PPPPP) shall be Rogelio P. Reyes (III)2

4. Ruben Reyes (Named Plaintiff, JJJ and RRRRR) shall be Ruben Reyes (Named

Plaintiff).

Defendants also move for the dismissal of the alternate identities of Alejandro

Dominguez and Alejandro Reyes. Both of these opt-in plaintiffs have at least one alternate

name that has been assigned its own alphabetical opt-in reference label. Alejandro

Dominguez (DDDD) is the same person as Adan Rodriguez Martinez (XXXX) and Jorge

Martinez (YYYY). Alejandro Reyes (MMMMM) is the same person as Alejandro Reyes

Patino (EEE). In this Order, the Court grants summary judgment against both Adan

Rodriguez Martinez (XXXX) and Alejandro Reyes Patino (EEE). “A summary judgment

motion goes to the merits of the case and . . . a granted motion operates to merge or bar the

cause of action for purposes of claim and issue preclusion.” 10A Charles Alan Wright &

Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2712 (3d ed. 1998). When the Court

grants summary judgment against a person, summary judgment is entered against that person

regardless of the person’s varying names or opt-in reference labels. As such, judgment was

entered against Adan Rodriguez Martinez (XXXX), Alejandro Reyes Patino (EEE),

Alejandro Dominguez (DDDD), Jorge Martinez (YYYY), and Alejandro Reyes

(MMMMM). 

Defendants also move for the dismissal of the duplicative alphabetical opt-in reference

labels of Alejandro Domingues, Alfredo Rodriguez, Rafael Leyva Gutierrez, and Emigidio

Perez Torres. As discussed above, Alejandro Dominguez is the same person as Adan

Rodriguez Martinez and Jorge Martinez, and accordingly, judgment has been entered against

him. In this Order, additionally, the Court has granted summary judgment against Alfredo

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 8 of 12
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

3

 The Court recognizes that, in their Motion to Dismiss Non-Participating and

Duplicative Plaintiffs, Defendants have claimed that these three opt-in plaintiffs failed to

appear for their depositions. (Dkt. # 181 at 3.) However, in their previous Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 133), Defendants assert that these plaintiffs failed to respond to

Defendant’s Requests for Admissions. Because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 133), the Court does not address the additional allegations

that these opt-in plaintiffs failed to appear for their depositions.

4

 Jose Larios (GG and NNNNN), Gustavo Reyes (FFF and OOOOO), and Jose Luis

Reyes (SSSSS and GGG).

- 9 -

Rodriguez, Rafael Leyva Gutierrez, and Emigidio Perez Torres.3 As such, judgment was

entered against the following: Alfredo Rodriguez (QQQQ and WWWWW), Rafael Leyva

Gutierrez (UUUUU and IIII), and Emigidio Perez Torres (SSSS and ZZZZZ).

Defendants have also moved for the dismissal of the duplicative alphabetical opt-in

reference labels of Jose Larios, Gustavo Reyes, and Jose Luis Reyes, opt-in plaintiffs that

were dismissed in the Order granting summary judgment of June 17, 2008 (Dkt. # 82.) In

response, Plaintiffs argue that the aforementioned plaintiffs opted-in to the lawsuit a second

time before the June 17, 2008 Order was filed, and since the Order did not specify that the

dismissal was with prejudice, the opt-in plaintiffs should be considered active participants

in the litigation. (Dkt. # 190 at 2.) 

“A summary judgment motion goes to the merits of the case and . . . a granted motion

operates to merge or bar the cause of action for purposes of claim and issue preclusion.” 10A

Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2712 (3d ed.

1998). Thus, the order granting summary judgment against the aforementioned plaintiffs

(Dkt. # 82) bars those opt-in plaintiffs from bringing the same claim against Defendants in

the future. As judgment has been entered against Jose Larios, Gustavo Reyes, and Jose Luis

Reyes, these individuals are barred from opting-in to the litigation again, and their

duplicative alphabetical opt-in reference labels4

 are of no effect.

Finally, Defendants request the dismissal of opt-in plaintiff Martin Murillo on the

grounds that “Plaintiff failed to apprise the Court of the status of Martin Murillo.” (Dkt. #

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 9 of 12
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

- 10 -

181 at 6.) However, Plaintiffs contend that it was through a mere clerical error that his status

does not appear on Exhibit A of their Supplemental Memorandum, and point out that he is

correctly identified as “Active” in Exhibits B and C. Because Defendants offer no evidence

that Mr. Murillo is inactive, and because he is indeed identified as “Active” elsewhere in the

Supplemental Memorandum, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Mr. Murillo is denied.

However, Mr. Murillo’s opt-in form “TTTTT” will be consolidated with form “NNNN.”

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Dismissal (Dkt. ## 131,

155) are GRANTED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment (Dkt. # 133), and Plaintiffs’ Motions for Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. ## 162, 190)

are GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Non-Participating

and Duplicative Plaintiffs (Dkt. # 181) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following opt-in plaintiffs are dismissed

without prejudice:

Nicolas Ruiz Garcia (BB)

Gustavo Ruiz Garcia (Z)

Juan Carlos “Garcia” Rodriguez (KKK)

Placido Alonso Gutierrez (CC)

Rigoberto Bretado (Q)

Enrique Lopez (JJ)

Aurelio Martinez “Salgado” (OO)

Baltasar Marino-Morales (AAAAA)

Arturo Blanco “Chavez” (P and “Complaint”)

Mario Villegas Perez (DDDDD)

Pablo Alejo Aguilar (ZZZ)

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 10 of 12
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

- 11 -

Geovanny Ayala (E)

Nicolas Martinez (PP)

Salvador Santana (RRR)

Radiel Torales (VVV)

Armando Lujan (LLLL)

Carlos Cruz (No Alphabetical Opt-In Reference Label)

Juan Jimenez (KKKK)

“Jose” Samuel R. Lopez (KKKKK)

Ricardo Maldonado, Jr.(No Alphabetical Opt-In Reference Label)

Alejandro Rodriguez (Not listed in any exhibit)

Juan Manuel Rodriguez (LLL)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered against the following opt-in

plaintiffs:

Victor Rodelo (GGGGG)

Alejandro Dominges (XXXXX and DDDD)

Alfredo Rodriguez (QQQQ and WWWWW)

Emigidio Perez Torres (SSSS and ZZZZZ)

Jose Loya Sotelo (RRRR)

Juan Gaspar (HHHH)

Luis Flores (EEEE)

Martin Tovar (TTTT)

Rafael Leyva Gutierrez (UUUUU and IIII)

Raul Flores (FFFF)

Adan Rodriguez Martinez (XXXX)

Alejandro Reyes Patino (MMMMM)

Juan Jimenez Hernandez (BBBBBB)

Adan Morales Marquillo (MMMM and VVVVV)

Juan Ramirez (CCCCCC)

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 11 of 12
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

- 12 -

Jorge Martinez (YYYY)

Alejandro Reyes (EEE)

Jose Larios (GG and NNNNN)

Gustavo Reyes (FFF and OOOOO)

Jose Luis Reyes (SSSSS and GGG)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED consolidating the following duplicative opt-in

plaintiffs:

Juan Bermudez (AAAAA and N) shall be Juan Bermudez (N)

Cesar T. Perez (OOOO, IIIII, and XX) shall be Cesar T. Perez (XX)

Rogelio P. Reyes (III and PPPPP) shall be Rogelio P. Reyes (III)

Ruben Reyes (Named Plaintiff, JJJ and RRRRR) shall be Ruben Reyes

(Named Plaintiff)

Martin Murillo (NNNN and TTTTT) shall be Martin Murillo (NNNN)

IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the parties confer and file a Joint List of

Active Plaintiffs with the Court before 5:00 P.M. on AUGUST 31, 2009.

DATED this 31st day of July, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02096-GMS Document 191 Filed 08/03/09 Page 12 of 12