LEVISON v. MASTEC, INC., 8:15-cv-1547-T-26AEP. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150804a45
Visitors: 27
Filed: Aug. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA , District Judge . In view of the fact that the Mas Tec Defendants have raised the issue of whether the Plaintiffs and the opt-in Plaintiffs must pursue their claims individually through the arbitration process, this Court, in the interest of preserving judicial and client resources, will not entertain the second motion from the Plaintiffs seeking class certification until that issue has been resolved by the Court. 1 Thus, the reason the Court deferred ruling on t
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA , District Judge . In view of the fact that the Mas Tec Defendants have raised the issue of whether the Plaintiffs and the opt-in Plaintiffs must pursue their claims individually through the arbitration process, this Court, in the interest of preserving judicial and client resources, will not entertain the second motion from the Plaintiffs seeking class certification until that issue has been resolved by the Court. 1 Thus, the reason the Court deferred ruling on th..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge.
In view of the fact that the Mas Tec Defendants have raised the issue of whether the Plaintiffs and the opt-in Plaintiffs must pursue their claims individually through the arbitration process, this Court, in the interest of preserving judicial and client resources, will not entertain the second motion from the Plaintiffs seeking class certification until that issue has been resolved by the Court.1 Thus, the reason the Court deferred ruling on that motion. The Defendants are relieved of the responsibility of responding to the motion until further order of the Court.
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court previously denied the Plaintiffs' first motion to certify a class without prejudice because, in the Court's view, such a motion was premature in light of the fact that the Defendant DirecTV had yet to be served with process and was thus not within the personal jurisdiction of the Court. See order at docket 23. The Court notes that the Plaintiffs have filed a return of service of process reflecting that the Defendant DirecTV was served with process on July 31, 2015, through its registered agent. See docket 26.
Source: Leagle
