Bogor v. American Pony Express, Inc et al
| 2:2009cv02260 |
| October 28, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Labor: Fair Standards Office |
| James A Teilborg |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
204
ORDER granting the 202 Joint Motion for Approval of the Proposed FLSA Class Settlement; approving the Settlement Agreement and directing the parties to consummate and implement the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms immediately. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 5/24/11.(REW)
|
|
Filing
149
ORDER, Counsel Jones shall send a copy of this Order to all of his clients for whom he seeks to withdraw from representation and shall file a proof of mailing; if a client does not object to the motion to withdraw by 9/8/10, the Court will deem the f ailure to object to be consent to the motion to withdraw being granted; withdrawal is granted for the corporate Defendant and no substitute counsel appears within 5 days of when withdrawal is granted, Plaintiff may move to strike the corporate Defend ant's answer; denying the 147 motion to stay; however, the parties may organize discovery however they deem appropriate within the deadlines set forth in this order; the deadline for completing all discovery is 2/14/11; the deadline for filing motions to decertify any class is 2/25/11; the deadline for filing dispositive motions is 5/31/11 (see order for further details). Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 8/25/10.(REW)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 83 Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint; the Clerk shall file the Second Amended Complaint currently lodged at Docket 84. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 8/16/10.(REW)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER GRANTING Motion Pla's 21 Motion for Preliminary FLSA Class Certification and to Authorize Notice to Similarly Situated Persons Under 29 U.S.C. §216(b). But the portion of the Motion requesting expedited discovery is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that this case is conditionally certified as a representative collective action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b), on behalf of all current and former drivers who leased taxis from American Pony Express from October 2006 to the present for the purpose of transporting passengers to and from the airport in accordance with its agreement with the City. FURTHER ORDERED that Dft shall identify all current and former Airport Drivers within the relevant time period and produce to Pla within ten (10) days of this Order the names of those Airport Drivers and, if known by Dft, their last mailing addresses and/or email addresses. FURTHER ORDERED that Pla shall mail notice of the FLSA action to all potential opt-in plaintiffs in the form of the notice attached to Plaintiff's Motion as Exhibit A (Doc. #22-1), as modified by this Order, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order; FURTHER ORDERED that all potential plaintiffs may "opt-in" to the collective action within sixty (60) days of the mailing of the notice of collective action by sending the opt-in form to Pla's counsel. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 5/17/10.(KMG)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Bogor v. American Pony Express, Inc et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
