Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morris v. Trugreen, Limited Partnership

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

August 1, 2018

GEORGE MORRIS, SHANNON BOYD, RYAN CO LEMAN, BARRY DAMICO and KELVIN CARTER, Plaintiffs,
v.
TRUGREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant.

          ORDER

          PAUL G. BYRON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This cause comes before the Court without oral argument on the following:

1. Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for an Order Permitting Court Supervised Notic e to Employees of Opt-In Rights (Doc. 47), and Defendant's Response in Opposition (Doc. 59);
2. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 60), submitted June 14, 2018; and
3. Plaintiffs' Objections to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61), and Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Objections (Doc. 62).

         With briefing complete, the matter is ripe.

         This collective action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (Doc. 1). On March 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court authorize a notice to a proposed class of the class-members' opt-in rights. (Doc. 47 (the “Motion”)). In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) submitted June 14, 2018, Magistrate Judge Kelly recommended that the Motion be denied, citing numerous deficiencies with the Motion. (Doc. 60, p. 13).[1]

         Plaintiffs submitted objections to the R&R, characterizing the “grounds for recommending denial of the motion [as] technical in nature and easily remedied.” (Doc. 61, p. 2). Therefore, Plaintiffs request the Court enter an Order permitting notice of opt-in rights to the proposed class “as set forth in Plaintiffs['] motion and as modified in accordance with this Objection, ” which conceded some of the issues identified by the R&R. (Id. at p. 6). Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' Objections. (Doc. 62).

         Upon de novo review, [2] the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Objections are due to be overruled, and their Motion denied. Although Plaintiffs ask the Court's help in correcting the Motion's “technical” deficiencies, a closer look reveals that Plaintiffs' proposed notice (in addition to the Motion) is fundamentally flawed. (See, e.g., Doc. 62, p. 13). The Court declines Plaintiffs' invitation to refashion a wholly inadequate proposed notice. Furthermore, the Court notes that Plaintiffs fail to cite a single case in their Objections to the R&R supporting their position that the Court should grant Plaintiffs their requested relief in spite of the pervasive defects found in the Motion. Plaintiffs thus fall short of establishing their entitlement to conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

         Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 60) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made part of this Order.
2. Plaintiffs' Objections to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61) are OVERRULED.
3. Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for an Order Permitting Court Supervised Notice to Employees of Opt-In Rights (Doc. 47) is DENIED.

         DONE ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.