Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06279/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06279-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO AGUAYO, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

OLDENKAMP TRUCKING, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV-F-04-6279 AWI LJO

ORDER REGARDING

MOTION FOR CLASS

CERTIFICATION

(Document #18)

On August 5, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify two classes in this action. 

Defendant opposed this motion. On October 3, 2005, Magistrate Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill

entered Findings and Recommendations that recommended the court grant the motion to

certify and that the court certify a collective action under the FLSA and certify a class action

under the UCL. Defendant filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Before

the undersigned took any action on the Findings and Recommendations, on November 22,

2005, the parties filed a letter in which they asked the undersigned to delay ruling on the

Findings and Recommendations and Defendant’s objections. The parties indicated that the

parties were in active settlement. Over the next several months, the parties continued to

inform the court that they were in settlement negotiations. On March 31, 2006, Judge

O’Neill held a status conference with the parties. At the status conference, the parties

informed Judge O’Neill that they had settled this action. 

Case 1:04-cv-06279-AWI-LJO Document 40 Filed 03/31/06 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

An administrative review of the docket in this action reveals that Plaintiffs’ August 5,

2006 motion for class certification has been administratively termed as an outstanding

motion. Pursuant to the Civil Justice Reform Act, this court is not to delay ruling on a

pending motion for more than six months. Because the motion for class certification has

been pending for over six months, the parties have asked the court delay adopting the

Findings and Recommendations regarding this motion, and the parties have informed the

court that they have reached a settlement, the court finds that in the interests of efficient case

management, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied without prejudice. If final agreement on

settlement cannot be reached, Plaintiffs may re-notice the motion and ask the court to

consider any briefs and evidence already filed.

The court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is DENIED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06279-AWI-LJO Document 40 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2