Singleton, et al v. Adick, et al

Plaintiff: Byron Singleton, Shannon Singleton, Carlos Velasco and Courtney Velasco
Defendant: Michael J Adick, Mary K Adick, Stanley P Benavidez, Elyte ATM Services, Inc., Elyte Services, LLC and Elyte Security Services, LLC
Case Number: 2:2009cv00486
Filed: March 10, 2009
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Labor: Fair Standards Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: James A Teilborg
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
August 19, 2011 151 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 138 Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $130,000. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 8/19/11.(TLJ)
March 25, 2011 143 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER AND SECOND AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: IT IS ORDERED Granting Plaintiffs' Rule 59 Motion (Doc. 134). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED substituting the following Second Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Amend ed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. 132) entered on February 8, 2011. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on their claims for unjust enrichment (Count III) and unpaid wages under the Arizona Wage Act (Count II), the Named Plaintiffs shall take jud gments against Defendants Mr. and Mrs. Adick in the following amounts: 1. Byron Singleton - $18,000; 2. Carlos Velasco - $15,000; 3. Shelly Walker - $15,000; 4. Gerald McDonald - $6,000;5. James Hininger - $24,000; 6. Johnath an Kearny - $12,000; 7. Steven Davis - $12,000; 8. Troy Smith - $9,000; 9. Bernadette Schmidt - $3,000; 10. Adrian Sanchez - $6,000; 11. Dawn Milo - $3,000; 12. Timothy Milo - $6,000; Total = $129,000. IT IS FU RTHER ORDERED entering a judgment in favor of the FLSA Plaintiffs, who are not also Named Plaintiffs, on their FLSA claims (Count I) against Mr. and Mrs. Adick in the following amounts: 1. Jerod Powell - $4,000;2. David Wright - $10,000; 3. Harry Matson - $14,000; 4. Jacob Silva - $4,000;5. Fernando Lucero - $2,000; 6. Irene Lasky - $4,000; 7. Robert Powell - $4,000; 8. Joe Charlier - $10,000; 9. Jeremy Cohee - $7,000; Total = $59,000.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motion for attorneys fees filed by Plaintiffsshall comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 3/24/11. (LAD)
February 8, 2011 132 Opinion or Order of the Court AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on their claims for unjust enrichment (Count III) and unpaid wages under the Arizona Wage Act (Count II), the Named Plaintiffs shall take judgments against Defendants Mr. and Mrs. Adick in the following amounts: 1. Byron Singleton - $18,000; 2. Carlos Velasco - $15,000; 3. Shelly Walker - $15,000; 4. Gerald McDonald - $6,000; 5. James Hininger - $24,000; 6. Johnathan Kearny - $12,000;7. Stev en Davis - $12,000; 8. Troy Smith - $9,000; 9. Bernadette Schmidt - $3,000; 10. Adrian Sanchez - $6,000; 11. Dawn Milo - $3,000; 12. Timothy Milo -$6,000; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering a judgment in favor of the FLSA Pl aintiffs, who are not also Named Plaintiffs, on their claims FLSA claims (Count I) against Mr. and Mrs. Adick in the following amounts: 1. Jerod Powell - $4,000; 2. David Wright - $10,000; 3. Harry Matson - $14,000; 4. Jacob Silva - &# 036;4,000; 5. Fernando Lucero - $2,000; 6. Irene Lasky - $4,000;7. Robert Powell - $4,000; Total = $42,000. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motion for attorneys' fees filed by Plaintiffs shall comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 2/8/11. (LAD)
April 16, 2010 95 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER, granting Plaintiffs' 76 Motion for Leave to Amend; the Clerk shall file the Amended Complaint lodged as 77 (see order for complete details regarding deadlines). Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 4/15/10.(REW)
November 2, 2009 42 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 12 Motion for Default Judgment; granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 13 Motion for Class Certification; it is ordered denying class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for the sta te law claims; it is ordered granting certification under FLSA §216 (b) of the following class: All individuals who worked for Defendants between October 2008 and December 2008 and are owed unpaid wages; Named Plaintiffs shall send notification of the conditional certification of the FLSA collective action to potential opt-in plaintiffs within 60 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 11/2/09.(REW, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Singleton, et al v. Adick, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Byron Singleton
Represented By: Michael Craig McKay
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Shannon Singleton
Represented By: Michael Craig McKay
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Carlos Velasco
Represented By: Michael Craig McKay
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Courtney Velasco
Represented By: Michael Craig McKay
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael J Adick
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mary K Adick
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Stanley P Benavidez
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Elyte ATM Services, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Elyte Services, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Elyte Security Services, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?