Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

DOES v. THE COLISEUM, INC., 2:13-cv-14492 (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20140502l56 Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 30, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL GERALD E. ROSEN, Chief District Judge. In this putative class and collective action, Plaintiffs are current and former exotic dancers at adult nightclubs alleging minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, and under Michigan's Minimum Wage Law, M.C.L. 408.382. Currently before the Court are two motions filed by Pl
More

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL

GERALD E. ROSEN, Chief District Judge.

In this putative class and collective action, Plaintiffs are current and former exotic dancers at adult nightclubs alleging minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, and under Michigan's Minimum Wage Law, M.C.L. § 408.382. Currently before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiffs: (1) a motion to conditionally certify their FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (Dkt. # 15); and (2) a motion to appoint Megan Bonanni, Kevin J. Stoops, and Jesse L. Young as interim class counsel. (Dkt. # 20). Defendants object to both. (Dkt. ## 39, 40).

The procedural posture of this case necessitates dismissing Plaintiffs' motions without prejudice. After Plaintiffs filed these motions, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint — primarily on the grounds that mandatory arbitration provisions preclude judicial adjudication of these claims. (Dkt. # 41). Plaintiffs then amended their Complaint (Dkt. # 43), and Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss. (Dkt. # 56). Briefing has not yet finished on Defendants' motion as the parties have, on three separate occasions, stipulated to extend the briefing schedule. (Dkt. ## 63, 64, 70). At the present moment, Defendants' reply is due by May 19, 2014. Due to the pendency of Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' motions are premature. For all of the foregoing reasons,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification [Dkt. # 15] is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel [Dkt. # 20] is DENIED without prejudice.

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