Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Navarro v. St. Francis Electric, Inc., 15-CV-500 EMC. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20151026695 Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS MATTER EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . WHEREAS the parties conducted a confidential mediation session sponsored by this Court on October 15, 2015 and the Parties reached a complete settlement of the named Plaintiff Navarro's claims in the above-captioned matter. WHEREAS the investigation into this mater showed that at most there are 13 other loop crew workers during the relevant period and, therefore, the number of potential FLSA opt-in
More

STIPULATION AND & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS MATTER

WHEREAS the parties conducted a confidential mediation session sponsored by this Court on October 15, 2015 and the Parties reached a complete settlement of the named Plaintiff Navarro's claims in the above-captioned matter.

WHEREAS the investigation into this mater showed that at most there are 13 other loop crew workers during the relevant period and, therefore, the number of potential FLSA opt-in plaintiffs does not satisfy the numerosity requirement for certification of a FLSA collective action. See Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986) cert. denied 479 U.S. 883 (1986).

WHEREAS the claims of the potential opt-in plaintiffs were not negotiated, compromised or otherwise affected by the settlement;

WHEREAS the settlement calls for a Dismissal Without Prejudice of any FLSA claims that can potentially involve workers other than Plaintiff NAVARRO;

WHEREAS the settlement calls for a Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Sixth Claim for Relied in the First Amended Complaint under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004, California Labor Code section 2698 et seq.

WHEREAS the settlement calls for a Dismissal With Prejudice of all Plaintiff NAVARRO's remaining claims in the First Amended Complaint.

WHERAS the parties desire the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the payment provisions in the settlement agreement only through February 1, 2016.

The Parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order requesting dismissal. Thus, the Parties, through their undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the Court enter this Stipulation as an Order.

IT IS SO STIPULATED

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to the parties' Stipulation, and Good Cause appearing therefore, that the above entitled action is hereby dismissed as follows:

The Sixth Claim for Relief in the First Amended Complaint under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004, California Labor Code section 2698 et seq. is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

As to the FLSA claim, the First Claim for relief, this Order is specifically without prejudice with respect to any rights, whether they exist or not, of anyone other than Plaintiff Martin Navarro.

All other claims are dismissed with prejudice and as such the First Amended Complaint is also ordered dismissed in its entirety.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to vacate all future dates and close the file.

The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the payment terms of the agreement through February 1, 2016 only.

Each side shall bear its own costs and fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer