UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESIDERO SOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00251-VC 

ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL 

FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION 

CERTIFICATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 105, 112, 116

Plaintiffs Desidero Soto, Steven Stricklen and Steeve Fondrose move for conditional 

certification to proceed as an opt-in collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act and seek approval for a notice to be mailed to the potential collective action 

members. Soto, Stricklen and Fondrose are technicians employed by defendant O.C. 

Communications, Inc., a contractor to cable providers. Technicians for O.C. Communications

perform a number of tasks related to the installation and repair of cable and other communication 

services. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 105-7, Decl. of Steven Stricken ¶ 7.

I. Conditional Certification

At this initial stage, the standard for certification of the collective action is lenient and 

usually results in the grant of conditional certification. See Brown v. Permanente Medical 

Group, Inc., 2017 WL 1536493, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2017). "The Court determines only whether 

the plaintiffs are 'similarly situated,' deciding whether a collective action should be certified for 

the purpose of sending notice of the action to potential class members." Guilbaud v. 

Sprint/United Management Co., Inc., 2014 WL 10676582, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2014). "District 

courts have held that conditional certification requires only that plaintiffs make substantial 
2

allegations that the putative class members were subject to a single illegal policy, plan or 

decision." Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 716 F. Supp. 2d 835, 837 (N.D. Cal. 2010) 

(quoting Murilo v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 266 F.R.D. 468, 470 (E.D. Cal. 2010)). "A plaintiff 

need not submit a large number of declarations or affidavits to make the requisite factual 

showing that class members exist who are similarly situated to him. A handful of declarations 

may suffice." Heath v. Google Inc., 215 F. Supp. 3d 844, 851 (N.D. Cal 2016).

Here, the plaintiffs have met their minimal burden. The plaintiffs have alleged that O.C. 

Communications, as a matter of company policy, has not compensated technicians for meal 

periods, has not reimbursed technicians for business expenses, has not for compensated 

technicians both pre- and post-shift work, and has undercompensated technicians by 

misclassifying performed tasks. Each of these allegations is supported by declarations of former 

technicians and technician supervisors, including technicians in both California and Florida.1 

For example, the plaintiffs' allegation that technicians are not compensated for time spent while 

at company warehouses at the beginning of their shifts is supported by the declarations of ten 

O.C. Communications technicians. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 105-9, Decl. of Carlos Rios at ¶¶ 9-10; 

Decl. of Steven Stricklen at ¶¶ 8-9; Dkt. No. 105-10, Decl. of Trever Tranberg at ¶¶ 8-9; Dkt. 

No. 105-15, Decl. of Pedro Vieira at ¶¶ 8-10. 

O.C. Communications argues that if conditional certification is granted, the class should 

be limited to technicians who have worked in California. But the plaintiffs have provided 

sufficient evidence here to conditionally certify a collective of all technicians nationwide. The 

Plaintiffs have provided significant evidence that O.C. Communications technicians in California 

and Florida are similarly situated. The Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that technicians in 

both states were required to work during their uncompensated lunch breaks. Compare Decl. of 

Pedro Vieira at ¶¶ 17-19 with Decl. of Carlos Rios at ¶¶ 14-16. The Plaintiffs also provided 

evidence that technicians in both states were required to return to the warehouse after completing 

 

1

It is appropriate to consider these declarations in connection with this motion, notwithstanding 

the evidentiary objections by O.C. Communications. Heath, 215 F. Supp. 3d at 853.
3

their last task, but were not compensated for this time. Compare Dkt. No. 105-11, Decl. of Jacky 

Charles at ¶ 15 with Dkt. No. 105-6, Decl. of Desidero Soto at ¶ 14. Moreover, the COO of O.C. 

Communications has testified that technicians in all five states have been paid using the same 

general compensation system. Dkt. No. 105-3, Depo. of Larry Wray at 8:7-12, 77:13-25. Given 

the lenient standard applied at this stage, this evidence is sufficient to conditionally certify a 

nationwide collective, including all technicians in California, Florida, Utah, Arizona, and 

Washington. See Gilbert v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 08-CV-0385-SC, 2009 WL 424320, at *5 (N.D. 

Cal. 2009) (proposed nationwide class granted where plaintiffs only submitted declarations from 

employees in single state); Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Systems, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 530, 538-39 (N.D. 

Cal. 2007) ("[T]here is no requirement that plaintiffs must provide equal amounts of evidence for 

every facility.").

The Court will resolve the equitable tolling issue at a later date and will review the 

revised proposed notice after it is submitted by Plaintiff's counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2017

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge