Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01180/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01180-19/pdf.json

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

---

SQUIRE, SANDERS &

DEMPSEY L.L.P. One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 

REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL 

JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) 

CASE NO. 03-01180 (SBA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(Oakland Division) 

PAUL VELIZ, et al, On behalf of 

Themselves and All Others Similarly 

Situated. 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CINTAS CORPORATION, an Ohio 

corporation; PLAN ADMINISTRATOR 

for the Cintas Partners’ Plan; and 

DOES 1-25, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-03-01180 (SBA) 

[E-FILING] 

CLASS ACTION 

 ORDER GRANTING CINTAS 

CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR ENTRY 

OF FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN 

PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 

54(b) 

Defendant Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”) has moved this Court for entry of judgment 

against certain plaintiffs, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Cintas’ counsel has confirmed that 

the Court’s docket reflects that no opposition to this motion has been filed. Cintas’ counsel 

further confirmed that no paper related to this motion has been received by Cintas’ counsel. 

Having considered the papers presented, and the argument of counsel, for the reasons 

more fully set forth herein, the Court hereby GRANTS Cintas’ Motion. 

A. Relief Requested By Cintas’ Motion

By this Motion, Cintas seeks an Order granting entry of final judgment, pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 54(b), as to the following individual plaintiffs against whom this Court has entered an 

order completely disposing of their claims against Cintas in this matter, either by granting 

summary judgment against the individual by its order of April 17, 2007 [Docket No. 631]) or 

by granting Cintas’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b). 

 

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 655 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & 

DEMPSEY L.L.P. One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3492 

REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL 

JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) 

CASE NO. 03-01180 (SBA)

NAME Basis For Disposition of Claims

James Lee Barnard Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Todd Bates Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Mark Bernard Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Leon Bipat Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Denise Cecile Blackford Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Henry L. Boone Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Dustin Brandis Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Christopher D. Brown Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Reginal Crosby Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Roger E. Czekaj Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Todd Davis Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Michael Delossantos Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Danny R. Ellisor Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Stephen Shane Fletcher Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Steven L. Fox Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Thomas S. Frankowski Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Chris Franks Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Lloyd V. Fudge Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Jim Garman Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Robert H. Gilmore Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Douglas E. Goree Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Laureano Guajardo, Sr. Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Robert S. Hendrick Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Clarence Holloway Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Anthony Hopper Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Richard Huber Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Jason A. Isherwood Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Sol E. Jaffee Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Mitchell Jessup Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

David Jeter Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Bobby Jones Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Arthur Joseph Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Steven Klocek Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Robert R. Kramer Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Nathan A. Kuethe Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Theodis R. Lee Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Vincent J. Leggio Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Ewell Farley Lester, Jr. Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Noel Lloyd Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Russell Long Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Edgar A. Lugo II Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Gregory William Machala Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Paul Viray Mallari Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Richard Dean Massey Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Jeffrey Scott Mayton Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 655 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & 

DEMPSEY L.L.P. One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3492 

REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL 

JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) 

CASE NO. 03-01180 (SBA)

NAME Basis For Disposition of Claims

Garland McAnally III Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Michael McNail Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Jose Medina Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

John F. Meyer Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Linn Allen Minnick Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Ron Molo Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Timothy Monahan Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

David Moore Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Steven Michael Mullis Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Lind Murray Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Gary T. Newvine Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Brandi Ott Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Jose A. Plascencia Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Sai Pongchit Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Keith R. Reaves Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Mark Rios Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Kevin Roam Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Jeffrey J. Schwall Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Lorenzo J. Serrano Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Marvin S. Sherman Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Jerome Shropshire Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Ronald Lynne Smith Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Roger W. Smith, Jr. Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Kevin L. Stumpf Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Johnny C. Terrell Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

William Gregory Thrash Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Ryan Urdiales Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Ryal Van Williams II Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Pedro Velazquez Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Paul Walsh Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Leslie D. Whitlock Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Cory A. Whitlow Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Brian Whitman Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Richard A. Whitted Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Gary Lynn Wiant Rule 41(b) Motion Pending 

Roland K. Wilson Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Robert S. Wooten Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Scott Worful Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Matthew Zoankowski Summary Judgment Granted (Dkt. No. 631) 

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 655 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & 

DEMPSEY L.L.P. One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3492 

REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL 

JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) 

CASE NO. 03-01180 (SBA)

B. Short Statement Of Rationale Of The Decision And Citations To Authority 

As To The Relief Requested

1. Introduction and Legal Standard 

This motion comes as the next sequential step in an orderly process to narrow the 

individuals participating in this action involving claims by Plaintiffs that Cintas wrongfully 

characterized them as “exempt” and did not pay them overtime in violation of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”). In January 2007, the Court issued an order confirming that Cintas’ 

Requests for Admissions were admitted by operation of law, by all nonresponding plaintiffs. 

[Dkt. No. 594]. The court subsequently granted summary judgment against 58 of the individual 

nonresponding plaintiffs [Dkt. No. 631], and also granted Plaintiff counsels’ Motion to Withdraw 

as Counsel of Record as to 81 nonresponding plaintiffs. [Dkt No. 580] The Court has also 

granted Cintas’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute the remaining nonresponding 

plaintiffs against whom summary judgment had not been granted. 

Cintas now seeks entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) as to the 58 

individuals against whom the Court entered summary judgment on April 3, 2007 and as to those 

individual plaintiffs being dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

This motion for entry of final judgment is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), which states, 

in relevant part: 

. . . . [W]hen multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final 

judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the . . . parties only upon an 

express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express 

direction for the entry of judgment. . . . . 

The discretion of the Court whether to direct the entry of a final judgment under Rule 54(b) “is to 

be exercised ‘in the interest of sound judicial administration.’” Curtiss-Wright v. General 

Electric, 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 437 

(1956). 

2. Applicable Considerations Weigh Strongly in Favor of Directing the 

Entry of Final Judgment Under Rule 54(b). 

The present situation falls squarely within the rule. Cintas is only moving for entry of 

judgment against those plaintiffs listed herein, all of whom have had an ultimate disposition of 

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 655 Filed 06/07/07 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & 

DEMPSEY L.L.P. One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3492 

REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL 

JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) 

CASE NO. 03-01180 (SBA)

their only claim in this matter, either pursuant to summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or 

by dismissal upon the merits pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Under the present facts and 

circumstances, there is no just reason to delay issuing a final judgment as to all of these individual 

plaintiffs. To the contrary, there is every just and practical reason to promptly issue the final 

judgment as to these individuals. 

Specifically, the Court observes that the individual plaintiffs at issue herein have ignored 

obligations to participate in this matter since opting into this action as plaintiffs. They failed to 

respond to discovery requests despite having four extensions and a clear warning from the Court 

that their failure to respond “might effectively dismiss certain opt-in plaintiffs.” [Dkt. No. 556]. 

As a result of their nonresponse, claim-dispositive orders have been entered against these 

plaintiffs either because of their refusal to prosecute this action or because their admissions 

substantively disposed of their claim. 

Both equity and principles of sound judicial administration dictate that there is no reason 

to delay entry of final judgment. By refusing to respond to discovery and this Court’s Orders, 

these plaintiffs have separated themselves from the other litigating plaintiffs. Given the 

opportunity to speak up and prosecute their claims, they have failed to do so. Delaying entry of 

final judgment will just tend to mislead a nonresponding plaintiff to think that he or she has 

additional time before trial to try to reverse the effect of past neglect. Cintas is prejudiced by the 

possibility that one or more of these nonresponding plaintiffs might attempt to reappear at a later 

date. 

C. Conclusion

This Court having found that it has issued final judgments against the plaintiffs listed 

above, and having determined that there is no just reason for delay, taking into consideration 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

///

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 655 Filed 06/07/07 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & 

DEMPSEY L.L.P. One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3492 

REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL 

JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) 

CASE NO. 03-01180 (SBA)

appropriate principles of equity and judicial administration, hereby GRANTS Cintas’ motion and 

further hereby expressly directs that final judgment be entered as to the plaintiffs listed above.. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _6/6/07 ________________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 655 Filed 06/07/07 Page 6 of 7
SQUIRE, SANDERS & 

DEMPSEY L.L.P. One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3492 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

CASE NO. 03-01180 (SBA)

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Agnes A. Gacayan, am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I 

am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is One Maritime 

Plaza, Third Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-3492. 

On June 7, 2007, I served the foregoing document described as: 

SUBMISSION OF REVISED PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING CINTAS 

CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST 

CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) 

 VIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE ON THE 

PARTIES AS SET FORTH IN THE RECORDS OF THE COURT AS OF THIS DATE. 

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose 

direction the service was made. Executed on June 7, 2007, at San Francisco, California. 

/s/ 

Agnes A. Gacayan 

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 655 Filed 06/07/07 Page 7 of 7