Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

PRIZZI v. RODES FARMS, INC., 2:17-cv-86-FtM-99CM. (2017)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20170410d27 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on review of the file. A review of the Complaint (Doc. 1) reflects counts unrelated to claims for overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Count I and Count II allege retaliatory discharge under the FLSA and a Florida Statute. In light of the claims in this case, the Court finds that the case should proceed under a regular civil Track Two Notice. Therefore, the stay of the requirement to
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on review of the file. A review of the Complaint (Doc. 1) reflects counts unrelated to claims for overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Count I and Count II allege retaliatory discharge under the FLSA and a Florida Statute. In light of the claims in this case, the Court finds that the case should proceed under a regular civil Track Two Notice. Therefore, the stay of the requirement to file a Case Management Report in the Related Case Order and FLSA Track Two Notice (Doc. 3) will be lifted so that the parties may proceed with the submission of a Case Management Report.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. The Related Case Order and FLSA Track Two Notice (Doc. 3) is vacated and the stay is lifted.

2. The Clerk shall issue an Amended Related Case Order and Track Two Notice immediately. If the parties previously filed their Notice of Pendency of Other Actions, they are not required to re-file or file Amended Notices to comply with the Amended Related Case Order and Track Two Notice.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
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