Danny Flores et al v. City of San Gabriel et al
| Robert Barada, Shannon Casillas, Enrique Deanda, Danny Flores, Cruz Hernandez, James Just, Ray Lara, Gilbert Lee, Rene Lopez, Rikimaru Nakamura, Steve Rodrigues, Vy Van, Kevin Watson, Christopher Wenzel and Dane Woolwine |
| City of San Gabriel and Does |
| 2:2012cv04884 |
| June 4, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael R. Wilner |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
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
144
JUDGMENT AS TO ATTORNEYS' FEES by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Pursuant to the Order entered on February 19, 2019 (Dkt. No. 139 ), Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys fees and costs is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $253,106.75 in attorney's fees and $2,570.13 in costs from Defendants. 139 , 143 . MD JS-6, Case Terminated. (twdb)
|
|
Filing
83
JUDGMENT by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT: 1. Defendant is entitled to claim the overtime exception found in 29 U.S.C Section 207(k). 2. Defendant failed to include the value of cash-in-lieu of benefits payments when calculating Plaintiffs regular rates of pay. 3. Defendant was not required to include the total value of all benefits provided as part of its Flexible Benefit Plan in the calculation of Plaintiffs regular rates of pay. 4. Plaintiffs Robert Barada, Ra y Lara, Dane Woolwine, Rikimaru Nakamura, Christopher Wenzel, Cruz Hernandez and Enrique Deanda (collectively Prevailing Plaintiffs) established entitlement to unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, judgment is hereby enter ed in the Prevailing Plaintiffs favor against Defendant. The Prevailing Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime payments from Defendant in the following amounts: a. Robert Barada: $561.58; b. Ray Lara: $141.71; c. Dane Woolwine: $354.60; d . Rikimaru Nakamura: $294.72; e. Christopher Wenzel: $452.97; f. Cruz Hernandez: $48.02; g. Enrique Deanda: $390.26. 5. The Prevailing Plaintiffs shall recover prejudgment interest on the above sums. 6. The Prevailing Plaintiffs shall recover their costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees from Defendant. 7. The Prevailing Plaintiffs are not entitled to liquidated damages. 8. Plaintiffs Kevin Watson, Shannon Casillas, James Just, Gilbert Lee, Rene Lopez, Steve Rodrigues and Vy Van failed to establish entitlement to any relief from Defendant. Accordingly, judgment is entered in Defendants favor against those Plaintiffs, who shall take nothing by way of their complaint. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ad)
|
|
Filing
71
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUA SPONTE GRANTING DEFENDANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Objection/Opposition (Motion related), 39 , and Supplement(Motion related), 38 . (See document for specifics) (mrgo)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 20 AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 23 by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: (see document image for further details). For the reasons set forth above, the Co urt GRANTS Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court directs the parties to submit further briefing addressing the issue of liquidated damages. Plaintiffs may file a supplemental brief on the issue, due by September 18, 2013. Defendant may file an opposition by September 25, 2013. (ad)
|
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 California Central 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
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.
