IN RE FAMILY DOLLAR FLSA LITIGATION, 3:08MD1932-MU. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120130670
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2012
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Court's own motion. This motion relates to Defendant's outstanding Motions for Summary Judgment in the Grace and Ward cases. 1 The Court has requested additional documentation in at least two motions for summary judgement. 2 In both of these cases, the Court was without specific evidence, from Family Dollar's employment records, to determine the average number of hours Plaintiffs worked per week and Plaintif
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Court's own motion. This motion relates to Defendant's outstanding Motions for Summary Judgment in the Grace and Ward cases. 1 The Court has requested additional documentation in at least two motions for summary judgement. 2 In both of these cases, the Court was without specific evidence, from Family Dollar's employment records, to determine the average number of hours Plaintiffs worked per week and Plaintiff..
More
ORDER
GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Court's own motion. This motion relates to Defendant's outstanding Motions for Summary Judgment in the Grace and Ward cases.1
The Court has requested additional documentation in at least two motions for summary judgement.2 In both of these cases, the Court was without specific evidence, from Family Dollar's employment records, to determine the average number of hours Plaintiffs worked per week and Plaintiffs' salary per week during the relevant time period. Family Dollar is now directed to review the remaining outstanding Motions for Summary Judgment and to the extent this evidence is lacking, Family Dollar shall supplement its remaining Motions for Summary Judgment and produce the records and/or declaration indicating the average number of hours Plaintiffs worked per week and Plaintiffs' salary per week during the relevant time period no later than twenty (20) days from the date of this Order.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Echols (Doc. No. 148), Richardson (Doc. No. 194), Anderson (Doc. No. 334), Manos (Doc. No. 344), Ward (Doc. No. 346), Harson (Doc. No. 321), Atkins (Doc. No. 327), Fancher (Doc. No. 313), Tucker (Doc. No. 249), Phillips (Doc. No. 323), Jahateh (Doc. No. 352), Burnette (Doc. No. 339), Parker (Doc. No. 331), McCoy (Doc. No. 178), Tate (Doc. No. 146), Belford (Doc. No. 214), Blair (Doc. No. 259), Smith (Doc. No 350), Rowell (Doc. No. 203), Gilberti (Doc. No 333), Conway (Doc. No. 237), Little (Doc. No. 318), Davis (Doc. No. 341), Hargrove (Doc. No 398), Dearmon (Doc. No. 317), and Mitchell (Doc. No. 337).
2. See Doc. Nos. 734 and 761.
Source: Leagle
