Murillo et al v. Coryell County Tradesmen LLC et al
| Nancy Murillo, Evelyn Mejia, Ambrocio Benito Castro and Melchor Acevedo |
| Coryell County Tradesmen LLC, CC Labor LLC, Brandon Isaacks, Brent Isaacks and Paul Isaacks |
| 2:2015cv03641 |
| August 19, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| New Orleans Office |
| Jefferson |
| Nannette Jolivette Brown |
| Sally Shushan |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 0207 |
| Plaintiff |
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
350
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ronald Franks Construction Company, LLC's 277 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is granted in part to the extent t hat the Court will dismiss without prejudice the claims of the following ten opt-in Plaintiffs: (1) Ernest Weatherspoon; (2) Vidal Torres: (3) Jonis Iban Cortez Rivera; (4) Yadir Oviedo; (5) Margarito Orellana; (6) Wilkin Matute; (7) Angela McFloyd; (8) Juan Molina; (9) Elvin A. Molina; and (10) Andres Rojas Bernal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is denied in part to the extent that Ronald Franks seeks dismissal with prejudice of those ten opt-in Plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is denied in part to the extent that it requests dismissal of the claims of the following twelve opt-in Plaintiffs who provided written responses to Defendants' joint interrogatories: (1) Rene Solomon; (2) Ramon Puerto; (3) Bayron Ortiz; (4) Wendy Nieto; (5) Maurice McCormick; (6) Kenia Martinez; (7) Ricardo Nuan Hernandez Galindo; (8) Irbin Centeno Figueroa; (9) Quirino Hernandez; (10) Wilson Flores; (11) Francisco Cortez; and (12) Clement Tyrell. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Cour t will not reconsider the dismissal of (1) Ruben Varela; (2) Raul Estrada; or (3) Luis Juarez because their responses were not provided in opposition to the appropriate motions and Plaintiffs provided no reason for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 7/6/2017. (mmv)
|
|
Filing
346
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Roy Anderson Corporation's 280 Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Roy Anderson Corp.'s Lack of Knowledge is DENIED. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 7/5/2017. (mmv)
|
|
Filing
330
ORDER denying 285 Motion for Summary Judgment by Roy Anderson Corporation. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown. (jrc)
|
|
Filing
328
ORDER denying 259 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown. (jrc)
|
|
Filing
326
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 262 Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Proposed Trial Plan is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the jury trial in this matter will be bifurcated into two phases. The first phase will determine the liab ility portion of Plaintiffs' collective action FLSA claims. If the jury returns a verdict that any or all Defendants are liable for alleged violations of FLSA, then the second phase of the trial will be immediately tried before the same jury to consider what damages, if any, Plaintiffs are entitled to under FLSA as to those Defendants. Additionally, regardless of the jury's verdict on the liability portion of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, the second phase of trial will immediately proc eed before the same jury to also determine: (1) whether Plaintiffs are entitled to recover under their state law lien claims against Roy Anderson and Travelers; and (2) whether Roy Anderson and Travelers are entitled to recover under their state law counterclaims regarding Plaintiffs' liens. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties must file amended witness lists and an updated joint proposed Pre-Trial Order identifying which witnesses each party intends to call in each phase of the jury trial in this matter by June 27, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 6/26/2017. (mmv)
|
|
Filing
324
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America's 253 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 6/23/2017. (mmv)
|
|
Filing
250
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ronald Franks' 130 Motion to Dismiss Crossclaim of Roy Anderson Corp. or, Alternatively, to Stay Proceedings Pending the Outcome of Arbitration is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is granted in part to the extent it request a stay of the litigation of Roy Anderson's crossclaim against Ronald Franks pending the outcome of arbitration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is denied in part to the extent that it requests that the crossclaim be dismissed in favor of arbitration. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 3/28/2017. (mmv)
|
|
Filing
249
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ronald Franks Construction Company, LLC's 69 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Collective Action Complaint is DENIED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rona ld Franks' motion is denied as to Plaintiffs' FLSA claims and collective FLSA claims against Ronald Franks. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ronald Franks' motion is denied as moot as to Plaintiffs' PWA claims. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 3/27/2017. (mmv)
|
|
Filing
240
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ronald Franks Construction Company, LLC's 221 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plainti ffs' 222 Motion to Extend Submission Date is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 223 Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion to Continue is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 1/19/2017. (mmv)
|
|
Filing
224
ORDER denying 52 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 12/27/2016. (mmm)
|
|
Filing
211
ORDER GRANTING 183 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 12/2/2016. (mmv)
|
|
Filing
159
ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 62 Motion to Certify Class Certification. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Notice shall be sent to: "All individuals who provided labor to Coryell County Tradesmen or CC Labor or Ronald Franks Construction on the 225 Baronne Street construction project in New Orleans, Louisiana during the previous two years and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 207 or minimum wages pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 206 and who did not rec eive full overtime or minimum wagecompensation." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties meet and confer regarding the form and content of the proposed notice, in keeping with the Court's ruling herein. The parties are ordered to submit a jo int proposed notice within 10 days of the date of this Order. If the parties are unable to agree on a proposed notice, the parties shall each submit (1) their proposed notice and (2) their objections, with supporting authority, to the opposing party& #039;s notice and/or consent form, within 10 days of this Order, and request an expedited status conference on the matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent that any employment records of potential class members have not been produced, Defenda nts must produce this information to Plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opt-in period for putative class members shall be 90 days from the date that a final notice is approved by this Court. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 9/20/2016. (mmv)
|
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 Louisiana Eastern 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.
