Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01290/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01290-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Tracy
Defendant
Ryan Knight
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

----oo0oo----

RYAN KNIGHT, on behalf of 

himself and all similarly 

situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF TRACY,

Defendant.

CIV. NO. 2:16-1290 WBS EFB 

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 

CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION AND 

FACILITATED NOTICE PURSUANT 

TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Ryan Knight brought this action against 

defendant the City of Tracy alleging that defendant undercalculates his overtime pay and cash out of compensatory time off 

(“CTO”) in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (Compl. (Docket No. 1).) Presently before 

the court is plaintiff’s Motion to conditionally certify this 

action an FLSA collective action and issue notice to similarly 

situated individuals under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (Pl.’s Mot. 

Case 2:16-cv-01290-WBS-EFB Document 34 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 7
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

(Docket No. 28).)

Plaintiff is employed as a police officer for 

defendant. (Pl.’s Mot., Mem. (“Pl.’s Mem.”) at 2 (Docket No. 28-

1).) Plaintiff alleges that defendant has a policy that allows 

him and other City employees to decline health benefits in 

exchange for cash payments. (Id.) In calculating overtime pay 

and cash out of CTO for employees who take cash payments in lieu

of health benefits, defendant allegedly excludes payments made in 

lieu of health benefits from the “regular rate” of pay that is 

used to determine overtime pay and cash out of CTO. (Id. at 2.) 

This practice, according to plaintiff, is in violation of section 

207 of the FLSA. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff seeks to conditionally 

certify this action as an FLSA collective action and issue notice 

to employees of defendant who were subject to the above-described 

payment practice. (Id. at 1-2.)

Employees may bring suits for violations of the FLSA on 

their own behalf and on behalf of “other employees similarly 

situated.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The FLSA does not define the 

term “similarly situated,” nor has the Supreme Court or the Ninth 

Circuit offered further clarification. Brown v. Citicorp Credit 

Servs., Civ. No. 1:12-62 BLW, 2013 WL 4648546, at *2 (D. Idaho 

Aug. 29, 2013). However, the Supreme Court “has indicated that a 

proper collective action encourages judicial efficiency by 

addressing in a single proceeding claims of multiple plaintiffs 

who share ‘common issues of law and fact arising from the same 

alleged [prohibited] activity.’” Id. (quoting Hoffmann–La Roche, 

Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989)).

Case 2:16-cv-01290-WBS-EFB Document 34 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 7
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

District courts in the Ninth Circuit typically follow a 

two-step process for FLSA actions. Id.; see also Velasquez v. 

HSBC Fin. Corp., 266 F.R.D. 424, 427 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (listing 

cases). The district court first determines whether to 

conditionally certify the proposed class and send notice of the 

action based on the submitted pleadings and affidavits. Murillo 

v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 266 F.R.D. 468, 471 (E.D. Cal. 2010). 

After discovery and when the case is ready for trial, the court 

then engages in a more searching review of whether the plaintiffs 

are similarly situated, often triggered by a motion to decertify 

by the defendant. Id.; Velasquez, 266 F.R.D. at 427.

Given the lack of discovery and limited evidence 

available, courts apply a lenient standard to the first-step 

determination, which usually results in conditional class 

certification. Leuthold v. Destination Am., Inc., 224 F.R.D. 

462, 467 (N.D. Cal. 2004). This step “requires only that 

plaintiffs make substantial allegations that the putative class 

members were subject to a single illegal policy, plan or 

decision.” Murillo, 266 F.R.D. at 471. However, a plaintiff 

must supply “some modest evidentiary showing” beyond his or her 

own conclusory allegations, and the court need not rely on 

representations that indicate a lack of personal knowledge 

regarding alleged employer practices. Brown, 2013 WL 4648546, at 

*1-3. 

Here, plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify an FLSA 

class defined as “any and all current or former employees of the 

City of Tracy who have worked overtime and received cash payments 

Case 2:16-cv-01290-WBS-EFB Document 34 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 7
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

in lieu of health care benefits within the same pay period at any 

time since June 10, 2013.” (Pl.’s Proposed Order (Docket No. 28-

4).) In support of his request, plaintiff provides copies of 

collective bargaining agreements between defendant and its 

police, fire, and technical support departments indicating that 

defendant has a widespread policy of offering cash payments in 

lieu of health benefits. (See Decl. of Isaac S. Stevens Exs. AC, Collective Bargaining Agreements (Docket No. 28-2).) 

Plaintiff testifies, in a sworn affidavit, that “[o]ver the past 

three years when [he has] received cash payments for declining 

health insurance coverage . . . the City of Tracy has failed to 

include these payments into the calculation of [his] regular rate 

of pay for the purposes of determining overtime compensation or

[cash out of CTO].” (Decl. of Ryan Knight ¶ 8 (Docket No. 28-

3).) He further testifies that he is “aware of other police 

officers who are subject to” the same practice, and alleges that 

“[d]efendant uniformly applied this [practice] to all current and 

former employees” who take cash in lieu of health benefits. (Id.

¶ 9; Pl.’s Mem. at 4.) To date, twenty City employees have filed 

affidavits to join plaintiff’s action. (See Joint Status Report 

at 2-3 (Docket No. 24); Aff. Of Michael Oliveri (Docket No. 29).)

Plaintiff has met the required showing for conditional 

certification. He has alleged that he and the putative class 

were subject to a single payment practice whereby payments made 

in lieu of health benefits were not taken into account in 

calculating overtime pay and cash out of CTO. He has supported 

that allegation with copies of collective bargaining agreements 

Case 2:16-cv-01290-WBS-EFB Document 34 Filed 11/10/16 Page 4 of 7
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

5

between defendant and its employees, affidavits from employees, 

and his own sworn testimony. 

Defendant “is in substantial agreement with”

plaintiff’s request to conditionally certify the proposed class,

except to the extent the class includes employees who were paid 

“contract” overtime, but not FLSA overtime.

1 (Def.’s Opp’n at 1-

2 (Docket No. 30).) Defendant correctly notes that such 

employees “have no claim under the current action.” (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff has not opposed this modification. Accordingly, the 

court will conditionally certify plaintiff’s action as an FLSA 

collective action, subject to revision of plaintiff’s proposed 

class to include only employees who have worked FLSA overtime.

Plaintiff next seeks court authorization of a proposed

notice plan whereby defendant would send notice of this action to 

the class via their work-issued emails and last known mailing 

addresses. (Pl.’s Mem. at 4; Pl.’s Proposed Order ¶¶ 5-6.) 

Where “the court finds initial certification appropriate, it may 

order notice to be delivered to potential plaintiffs.” Kress v. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 263 F.R.D. 623, 628 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

(Karlton, J.) (citing Hoffmann-La Roche, 493 U.S. at 172). 

Having found that conditional certification is proper, the court 

finds that issuance of notice to the certified class is proper. 

 

1 Defendant notes that it “pay[s] overtime premiums in 

circumstances that are not required under the FLSA.” (Def.’s 

Opp’n at 2 (Docket No. 30).) For example, it pays its police 

officers overtime “for hours worked in excess of 160, despite 

that the City has adopted a 28-day work period under the [FLSA’s] 

7(k) exemption that sets the [FLSA] overtime threshold at 171

hours. Hours worked between 160 hours and 171 hours are [thus] 

considered ‘contract overtime,’ but not ‘FLSA overtime.’” (Id.)

Case 2:16-cv-01290-WBS-EFB Document 34 Filed 11/10/16 Page 5 of 7
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

Defendant agrees to plaintiff’s notice plan except to the extent 

it requires that notice be sent by email. (Def.’s Opp’n at 2.) 

Plaintiff has not opposed defendant’s request to send the notices

only by postal mail. Accordingly, the court will approve

plaintiff’s proposed notice plan, subject to the revision that 

defendant need only send the notices by postal mail.

As for the content of the notice, “[t]he FLSA requires 

the Court to provide potential class members ‘accurate . . .

notice concerning the pendency of the collective action, so that 

they can make informed decisions about whether to participate.’” 

Romero v. Producers Dairy Foods, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 474, 492 (E.D. 

Cal. 2006) (Coyle, J.). The notice that plaintiff provides 

accurately states the nature of this action and explains the 

consequences of opting in and not opting in.

2 (See Pl.’s 

Proposed Order Ex. A, Collective Action Notice.) Defendant has 

submitted a revised draft of plaintiff’s notice that defines this 

action to include only FLSA overtime and makes some slight 

changes in phrasing. (See Def.’s Proposed Order Ex. A, Revised 

Collective Action Notice (Docket No. 31).) Plaintiff has not 

opposed defendant’s revisions, and the court finds that the 

revisions are fair and accurate. Accordingly, the court will 

approve defendant’s draft of plaintiff’s notice.

 

2 Class members may “opt in to the class by filing a 

written consent with the Court.” Wood v. TriVita, Inc., No. CV08-0765 PHX SRB, 2009 WL 2046048, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 22, 2009) 

(citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 216(b) & 256). Those who choose not to opt 

in are not bound by this action. See Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. 

Sys., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 530, 535 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citing 

Leuthold, 224 F.R.D. at 466). Plaintiff’s notice adequately

explains these consequences.

Case 2:16-cv-01290-WBS-EFB Document 34 Filed 11/10/16 Page 6 of 7
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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for 

conditional certification of this action as an FLSA collective 

action and issuance of notice to class members be, and the same 

hereby is, GRANTED IN PART as follows:

(1) The class conditionally certified in this Order is 

defined as any and all current or former employees of the City of 

Tracy (“defendant”) who have worked FLSA overtime and received 

cash payments in lieu of health care benefits from defendant 

within the same pay period at any time since June 10, 2013.

(2) Plaintiff Ryan Knight is conditionally appointed 

collective action representative.

(3) Plaintiff’s counsel, Mastagni Holstedt, APC is 

conditionally appointed collective action counsel.

(4) The court authorizes the parties to send the notice 

defendant has attached as pages eight through ten of Docket No. 

31 (“class notice”) to the class certified in this Order.

(5) Within fourteen days of the date this Order is 

signed, defendant shall send the class notice, by first-class 

postal mail, to class members’ addresses of record.

(6) Within twenty-one days of the date this Order is 

signed, defendant shall provide plaintiff with proof that it has 

carried out the above-described notice plan.

Dated: November 10, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01290-WBS-EFB Document 34 Filed 11/10/16 Page 7 of 7