United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
GEORGE MORRIS, SHANNON BOYD, RYAN CO LEMAN, BARRY DAMICO and KELVIN CARTER, Plaintiffs,
TRUGREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant.
G. BYRON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause comes before the Court without oral argument on the
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).
briefing complete, the matter is ripe.
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).
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).
de novo review,  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).
it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED
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.