Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01486/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01486-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Modoc
Defendant
Julie Winkle
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

ORDER FOR CONDITIONAL Winkle v. County of Modoc 

CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION Case No. 2:16-cv-01486-KJM-GGH 

DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 204244) 

ISAAC S. STEVENS, ESQ. (SBN 251245) 

ACE T. TATE, ESQ. (SBN 262015) 

MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT 

A Professional Corporation 

1912 “I” Street 

Sacramento, California 95811 

Telephone: (916) 446-4692 

Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 

davidm@mastagni.com 

istevens@mastagni.com 

atate@mastagni.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

MARGARET LONG, ESQ. (SBN 227176) 

DAVID A. PRENTICE, ESQ. (SBN 144690) 

JASON S. EPPERSON, ESQ. (SBN 201318) 

PRENTICE, LONG & EPPERSON, PC 

1716 Court Street, Suite B 

Redding, California 96001 

Telephone: (530) 691-0800 

Facsimile: (530) 691-0700 

Jason@PLELawFirm.com 

David@PLELawFirm.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Case No. 2:16-cv-01486-KJM-GGH

[COLLECTIVE ACTION] 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF 

FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION AND 

NOTIFICATION TO AFFECTED 

INDIVIDUALS 

JULIE WINKLE, et al., on behalf of herself

and all similarly situated individuals, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF MODOC 

 

 Defendant. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case alleging the underpayment of overtime 

caused by the unlawful exclusion of certain incentives in the calculation of Plaintiffs’ pay. 

Pending before this Court is the parties’ stipulation for to conditionally certify this case as a 

collective action and facilitate a proposed notice procedure pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). 

Plaintiffs seek to notify potential opt-in plaintiffs in accordance with Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. 

Case 2:16-cv-01486-KJM-GGH Document 16 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER FOR CONDITIONAL Winkle v. County of Modoc 

CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION Case No. 2:16-cv-01486-KJM-GGH 

Sperling (1989) 493 U.S. 165. As requested by the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. This is a collective action conditionally certified as affecting a group of similarly 

situated individuals consisting of any and all current or former employees of the County of 

Modoc who have worked overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits 

within the same pay period at any time since June 30, 2013. 

2. Plaintiff Julie Winkle is appointed collective action representative. 

3. Plaintiff’s counsel, Mastagni Holstedt, APC is appointed counsel for this 

collective action, subject to the right of members who opt-in to use other counsel. 

4. The proposed notice to potential collective action members provided by the 

parties is approved as fair and accurate, subject to further review upon a request for final 

approval. 

5. Within thirty-five (35) days of this Order, Defendant shall distribute the notice, 

attached hereto, to all current employees who have worked overtime and received cash payments 

in lieu of health care benefits within the same pay period at any time since June 30, 2013, via the 

employees’ work-issued email addresses. To simplify this process, Defendant may choose to 

send notice to all employees’ work-issued email, rather than just those who worked overtime and 

received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits within the same pay period at any time 

since June 30, 2013, at its discretion. 

6. Within thirty-five (35) days of this Order, Defendant shall distribute the notice to 

all former employees who have worked overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health 

care benefits within the same pay period, and where employed by Defendant since June 30, 

2013, by first class mail to the former employees’ last known mailing address. To simplify this 

process, Defendant may choose to send notice to all former employees employed since June 30, 

2013 by first class mail to their last known mailing address, rather than just those who worked 

overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits within the same pay period at 

any time since June 10, 2013, at its discretion. 

7. Within fifty (50) days of this Order, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel 

with proof of distribution of the notice as set forth above. 

Case 2:16-cv-01486-KJM-GGH Document 16 Filed 12/13/16 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER FOR CONDITIONAL Winkle v. County of Modoc 

CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION Case No. 2:16-cv-01486-KJM-GGH 

8. Plaintiff’s pending motion for conditional certification and facilitated notice shall 

be removed from calendar and Defendant shall have no duty to respond to the motion. 

9. Any deadlines and hearings currently set in this case are hereby vacated, and all 

proceedings are stayed except the filing of consents to join and the joint status report required 

below. 

10. The parties shall use informal discovery and early settlement negotiations in an 

attempt to resolve this dispute promptly. 

11. The parties are ordered to submit a joint status report to this Court detailing their 

efforts taken to resolve this dispute and the current status of the case within ninety (90) days 

from the date of this order. 

12. In approving the parties’ stipulation, the Court notes that its determination of 

conditional certification under the FLSA is one of discretion, and the plaintiff’s burden to 

establish conditional certification is warranted is lenient. Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc., 242 

F.R.D. 530, 536 (N.D. Cal. 2007). In approving the stipulation, the Court reminds the parties 

that class settlement and final certification must be approved by this Court, and upon a request 

for final approval, the court will exercise its duty to independently review a party’s proposal in 

full. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 12, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01486-KJM-GGH Document 16 Filed 12/13/16 Page 3 of 3