Case Name: Ric CLARK, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; David Ellis, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Weldon Norman, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Claire Wallace, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-13
Citations: 464 F. App'x 325
Docket Number: No. 11-10815
Parties: Ric CLARK, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; David Ellis, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Weldon Norman, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Claire Wallace, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
Ric CLARK, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; David Ellis, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Weldon Norman, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Claire Wallace, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-10815.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 13, 2012.
Joshua William Carden, Irving, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Russell Daniel Cawyer, Paige Pritchard Biggs, Attorney, Kelly, Hart & Hallman, L.L.P., Fort Worth, TX, for DefendantAppellee.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
At issue are whether the district court erred by: applying the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) "special detail" exemption, 29 U.S.C. § 207(p)(l); and denying Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification under the FLSA's collective-action provision, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See Clark v. City of Ft. Worth, 800 F.Supp.2d 781 (N.D.Tex.2011). Essentially for the reasons stated in its well-considered opinion, the district court did not err by applying the exemption. Accordingly, we need not reach the collective-action issue.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.