Adams et al v. City of Manchester
| Jessica Adams and Charles Everingham |
| City of Manchester |
| 4:2011cv01309 |
| July 27, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - County |
| Thomas C. Mummert |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 2 |
| 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
188
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for sanctions [Doc. 122 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' second motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses [Doc. 181 ] is GRANTED as set forth above. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' first motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses [Doc. 179 ] is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on September 6, 2013. (BRP)
|
|
Filing
173
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. For the reasons herein, Defendant has not affirmatively established that it acted in good faith by attempting to ascertain the requirements of the FLSA. Defendant has failed to meet the subjective standard of good faith by failing to establish an honest intention to ascertain and follow the FLSA. See Chao, 547 F.3d at 942. With respect to the reasonable grounds requirement of the FLSA, because Defendant is unable to produce any evidence on what Chief Wa lsh reviewed it is impossible for the Court to find the Chief's interpretation was, in fact, reasonable. Because Defendant's decision not to pay the Record Clerks for their overtime hours was not made in good faith and was not objectively reasonable, the Court finds that an award of liquidated damages is appropriate. Consequently, an additional $15,425.71 shall be awarded as liquidated damages. An appropriate Judgment shall accompany these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on 06/18/2013. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
136
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of Jessica Adams, Tracey Lohse, and Mark Demitroff for summary judgment is DENIED. 110 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a pretrial conference shall be held in this case on Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 1:30 in the afternoon. Counsel should anticipate being trained on the courtroom technology equipment immediately following the conclusion of the conference. ( Pretrial Conference set for 5/9/2013 01:30 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert III.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on April 4, 2013. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
133
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) The Court will not grant Everingham's and Hagler's motions to dismiss their claims without prejudice. Any voluntary dismissal of these claims must be with prejudice. Accordingly, Charles Everi ngham and Christin Hagler will be granted up to and including 5 o'clock in the afternoon of February 25, 2013, within which to amend their motions to dismiss to be with prejudice. Should no amendment be timely forthcoming, their motions will be denied. All parties are cautioned that this Order does not presage a ruling, favorable or not, on Manchester's pending motion for sanctions. (Response to Court due by 2/25/2013.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on 02/13/2013. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
87
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of the City of Manchester for partial summary judgment is DENIED. [Doc. 36 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of Plaintiffs to strike Defendant's reply and the motion of Defendant to strike Plaintiffs memorandum in support of its motion to strike are each DENIED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that, within seven days of the date of this Order, counsel are to confer and submit a proposed joint schedule for the selection of a neutral and the completion of the alternative dispute resolution conference. Terese A. Drew remains as designated lead counsel. [Docs. 79 , 83 ] (Response to Court due by 8/14/2012.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on August 7, 2012. (BRP)
|
|
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. [Doc. 22 ] The collective action classes are conditionally certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). One class shall consist of current and former records clerks and police officers who performed work-related activities without pay at least twelve (12) minutes before the scheduled starts of their shifts within the last three (3) years. The other class shall consist of current and fo rmer records clerks who were not provided overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a single workweek within the last three (3) years. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Defendant is to identify all police officers and records clerks employed in the last three years and is to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a computer readable data file listing the names, last known address, and dates of employment for each such employee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Defendant is to post notice of this case in its break room at its office. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs may send notices and consent forms to potential opt-in class members in forms substantially identical to the notices submitted as Exhibits 14 and 15 and forms submitted as Exhibit 13. ( Response to Court due by 1/26/2012.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on 01/12/2012. (CBL)
|
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 Missouri 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.
