Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00050/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00050-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Avila
Plaintiff
Tom Souza
Plaintiff
Turlock Irrigation District
Defendant

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

GERALD AVILA, an individual;

TOM SOUZA, an individual; on

behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a

California Public Agency and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. 

Defendants.

1:06-CV-00050 OWW SMS

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

RE GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY CLASS

1. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ motion for

conditional class certification under the Fair Labor Standards

Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (Doc. 23, Mot. to Certify

Class, Filed August 1, 2006.) The named Plaintiffs are Power

Control Center Operators (“PCCOs”) for Defendant Turlock

Irrigation District (“TID”) who allege that TID misclassified

plaintiffs as exempt from FLSA overtime requirements. (Doc. 1,

Complaint, ¶ 16, filed January 17, 2006.) Plaintiffs seek

conditional certification of class of plaintiffs who are current

and former PCCO’s and Apprentice PCCO’s (“APCCOs”) so that they

may “opt in” as class members to this litigation. (Doc. 23, Mot.

to Certify Class.)

Case 1:06-cv-00050-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 11/06/06 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

2. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on January 17, 2006. (Doc.

1, Complaint.) Defendants filed an answer on May 20, 2006. 

(Doc. 7, Answer to Complaint.) On August 1, 2006, Plaintiffs

filed a Motion to Certify Class, conditionally. (Doc. 23, Mot.

to Certify Class.) On September 5, 2006, pursuant to local rule

78-230(c), Defendants filed a Statement of Non Opposition to

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class. (Doc. 36, Statement of Non

Opposition.) 

3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Avila and Souza are PCCOs for Defendant TID. 

Avila has worked for TID for the past 26 years. Souza has worked

for TID for the past eight years. Each is familiar with both his

job duties and with the TID system. 

Plaintiffs work in the Turlock Power Control Center where

they operate and monitor equipment directly engaged in generating

and distributing electricity. Plaintiffs operate and monitor

electrical power generation, transmission, and distribution

through the Energy Management System (“EMS”) in the TID control

area. From the control area, Plaintiffs observe information from

various schematics, alarms, and telemetry to monitor the correct

amount of electrical power which is generated and distributed. 

Plaintiffs utilize the EMS to remotely operate the generators,

transformer, capacitors, and circuit breakers which control power

generation levels and distribution flow. In addition, Plaintiffs

field and respond to customer inquiries about power outages. 

Despite Plaintiffs’ jobs as PCCOs, jobs which entail, as

Case 1:06-cv-00050-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 11/06/06 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

their jobs titles suggest, generating, transmitting, and

distributing electrical power, Plaintiffs claim that TID has

misclassified them as exempt from FLSA overtime requirements. 

Plaintiffs filed the instant wage and hour class action on

January 17, 2006. Plaintiffs claim and allege, that during

their employment with Defendant, they frequently worked more

than forty (40) hours per week, due to being scheduled for

twelve-hour shifts, but were not paid overtime compensation

for the time worked in excess of 40 hours. Plaintiffs are

suing under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §

201 et seq.§ (“FLSA” or the “Act”) to recover time and a half

for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week,

as well as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs incurred in this action. 

By this motion, Plaintiffs request the Court conditionally

certify the proposed FLSA class and order FLSA Notice to inform

and permit all current and former PCCOs and Apprentice PCCOs to

“opt in,” as each of them is similarly situated to the named

Plaintiffs. Also, Plaintiffs request that Defendants provide a

list of all past and current employees who worked as PCCOs and

Apprentice PCCOs during the class period, along with last known

addresses, to facilitate the sending of Notice. Plaintiffs

assert that Defendant has refused to stipulate to such Notice and

to supply Plaintiffs with a list of all potential class members. 

See Declaration of Mark A. Ozzello (“Ozzello Decl.”) at ¶ 4.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to pay overtime

Case 1:06-cv-00050-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 11/06/06 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

 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2)(A) provides: “No employer shall 1

employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, and who in

such workweek is brought within the purview of this subsection by

the amendments made to this act by the Fair Labor Standards

Amendments of 1966... for a workweek longer than forty hours

after the expiration of the second year from such date unless the

employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of

the hours above specified at a rate not less than one-half times

the regular rate at which he is employed.” 

4

compensation to PCCOs and APCCOs who worked in excess of forty

hours a week. Plaintiffs argue that to notify these individuals

of their right and ability to “opt in” to this litigation,

Plaintiffs propose sending Notice to all individuals who were

employed by Defendant as PCCOs and APCCOs at any time within the

class period. Plaintiffs seek to send Notice to the following

persons: 

All persons who were employed by Defendant Turlock

Irrigation District as Power Control Center Operators

or Apprentice Power Control Center Operators at any

time during the period January 11, 2003 to the present.

Plaintiffs make two requests: 1. for an order conditionally

certifying the proposed FLSA class and 2. directing Defendant to

disclose the names and addresses of all individuals as described

above. Plaintiffs agree to send the attached Notice and Consent

forms to all individuals so disclosed by Defendant. 

4. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Any employer who violates 29 U.S.C. § 207 of FLSA shall be 1

liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of

their... unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be and in

an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C.

Case 1:06-cv-00050-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 11/06/06 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

216(b) An action to recover the liability prescribed in either

of the preceding sentences may be maintained against any employer

(including a public agency) in any Federal Court of competent

jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of

himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. 

Id. No Employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action

unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and

such consent is filed in the court in which such action is

brought. Id.; Nevada Employees’ Ass’n v. Bryan, 916 F.2d 1384,

1393 (9th Cir. 1990). An action under FLSA brought by Plaintiffs

on behalf of themselves and all other “similarly situated” are

considered “collective actions” that benefit the judicial system

by enabling the “efficient resolution in one proceeding of common

issues of law and fact.” Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493

U.S. 165, 170 (1989). Unlike class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.

23, Plaintiffs in an action under FLSA must affirmatively “opt

in” to participate in the litigation. 29 U.S.C. 216(b); Hipp v.

Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1217 (11th

Cir. 2001). 

5. DISCUSSION

A. Directed Notice Is Appropriate in FLSA Litigation 

The United States Supreme Court has held that district court

approval and facilitation of notice serves the goal of avoiding a

multiplicity of duplicative suits and setting cutoff dates to

expedite disposition of the action. Hoffman-LaRoche, 493 U.S.

171. To facilitate this process, a district court may authorize

the named plaintiffs in a FLSA collective action to send notice

to all potential plaintiffs and may set a deadline for plaintiffs

Case 1:06-cv-00050-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 11/06/06 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

to join the suit by filing consents to sue. Doe v. Advanced

Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2000). 

B. At This Stage Plaintiffs Have Met Their Burden of Showing

That They Are Similarly Situated to the Class

A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that he and the

class he wishes to represent are similarly situated. Hanon v.

Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992)(questioned

on other grounds.) Section 216(b) does not define “similarly

situated.” The Ninth Circuit also has not defined “similarly

situated” under the statute. However Wynn v. National

Broadcasting Company, Inc., 234 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1082 (C.D. Cal.

2002) has stated that the majority of courts prefer an ad hoc,

two-tiered approach to be made on a case by case basis. The

first determination is made at the “notice stage.” Id. At this

stage the court makes a decision based on the pleadings and any

affidavits that have been submitted, as to whether the class

should be certified. Id. Due to the minimal evidence at the

court’s disposal, this determination is based on a fairly lenient

standard, and typically results in a “conditional certification”

of a representative class. Id. The second determination is made

after discovery is largely complete, usually on a motion for

decertification by defendant. Id. There, the court weighs

various factors in making a factual determination as to whether

the plaintiffs are similarly situated. Id. Such factors include

1. the disparate factual and employment settings of the

individual plaintiffs, 2. the various defenses available to the

defendant which appeared to be individual to each plaintiff, and

3. fairness and procedural considerations. 

Case 1:06-cv-00050-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 11/06/06 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

Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs’ motion to certify

class. Further Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have engaged in

and implemented a uniform plan or scheme to extract labor from

the members of the proposed FLSA class by scheduling twelve-hour

shifts for several days at a stretch, such that each employee

ends up working an excess of forty hours in a given week without

being paid time and a half, in violation of FLSA. Plaintiffs

include declarations to support their contentions that they are

similarly situated with other PCCOs and APCCOs. Under the

lenient standard applied in Wynn, at this stage, Plaintiffs have

made a sufficient showing that they are similarly situated for

purposes of conditionally certifying the class under the FLSA. 

6. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion to conditionally certify class is

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

dd0l0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00050-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 11/06/06 Page 7 of 7