Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02740/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02740-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS DE LEON, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BURKETT’S POOL PLASTERING, INC.

ET AL.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-02740-TLN-EFB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants Burkett’ s Pool Plastering, Inc., 

Robert Burkett, and Matt Windorski’s (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) Motion to 

Reconsider Magistrate Judge Brennan’s Ruling (ECF No. 71). Defendants contend that 

Magistrate Judge Brennan’s ruling in which he amended the scheduling order to accommodate 

extending the discovery cutoff is clearly erroneous and contrary to law. 

The Court has considered Defendants’ request and finds that Magistrate Judge Brennan’s 

ruling is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, as required pursuant to Local Rule 303(f). See 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). In fact, the Court is aware of the tactics that Defendants have 

employed throughout discovery in an effort to impair Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Thus,

///

///

Case 2:12-cv-02740-TLN-EFB Document 72 Filed 12/03/14 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendants are now on notice that such behavior will not be tolerated by this Court. The Court 

agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned decision and thus DENIES Defendants’ motion 

for reconsideration (ECF No. 71).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2014

Case 2:12-cv-02740-TLN-EFB Document 72 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 2