Soles v. Zartman Construction, Inc. et al
| Brian Soles |
| Harold Reich, Dean Paul, Zartman Construction, Inc. and John Does (1-10) |
| 4:2013cv00029 |
| January 4, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Williamsport Office |
| Northumberland |
| Thomas M. Blewitt |
| John E. Jones |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation |
| 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
27
ORDER 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc.25) is ADOPTED IN PART to the following extent: a. Plaintiffs claim under the FLSA, contained in Count I of his Amended Complaint, is conditionally certified as a collective acti on pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 2. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 25) is REJECTED IN PART to the following extent: a. Plaintiffs claim under the PMWA, contained in Count II of his Amended Complaint and concern ing Defendants allegedmiscalculation of overtime rates, shall not be dismissed and is GRANTED conditional class action certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with a class defined as employees of Defendant Zar tman Construction, Inc., who are non-exempt under state and federal wage and hour law and who at some time in the last three years received an Incentive Pay Bonus, Night Premium, and/or Well Premiumwhich was not included in their regular rate for the purpose of calculating their overtime rate, and were therefore allegedly paid an overtime rate less than 1.5 times their regular rate. b. Plaintiffs claim under the PWPCL, contained in Count III of his Amended Complaint and concerning Defendants all eged failure to pay for off-the-clock work, shall not be dismissed but isDENIED conditional class action certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As noted above, our decision not to dismiss Count III at this ti me is without prejudice to Defendants right to file a motion squarely presenting and more comprehensively arguing this point.3. The parties shall meet and confer about the form of court-supervisednotice within fourteen (14) days of the date of this O rder and PlaintiffSHALL FILE a motion for notice to potential collective action andclass action members within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.4. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, the parties SHALLFILE a letter on the docket stipulating to a trial term and, based on thechosen trial month, attendant deadlines for the completion of discoveryand filing of dispositive motions. (eo)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER REMANDING CASE and granting 8 Motion to Dismiss Party. Defendant Reich is DISMISSED as a Defendant without prejudice to the Plaintiff filing for leave to amend the complaint to add Defendant Reich as a Defendant in the event discovery reveals facts supporting a claim against him. This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for all further pre-trial management. Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 3/25/13. (pw)
|
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 Pennsylvania Middle 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.
