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.

Hernandez v. Arc Trading Co

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

December 22, 2017

LUIS MANUEL HERNANDEZ, GILBERTO HERNANDEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216b, Plaintiff,
v.
ARC TRADING COMPANY; WENRU YOU; and ANN YOU, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          DAVID L. HORAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Luis Manuel Hernandez has filed a Motion to Ratify Opt-In Notice of Gilberto Hernandez Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See Dkt. No. 9 (the “Motion to Ratify”). United States District Judge Sam A. Lindsay has referred the Motion to Ratify to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for a hearing, if necessary, and for determination under 28 U.S.C. § 636. See Dkt. No. 15.

         Defendants ARC Trading Company and Wenru You, a/k/a Ann You filed a response, see Dkt. No. 13, and Plaintiff Luis Manuel Hernandez has not filed a reply, and his time to do has passed.

         For the reasons and to the extent explained below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Luis Manuel Hernandez's Motion to Ratify Opt-In Notice of Gilberto Hernandez Pursuant To 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) [Dkt. No. 9].

         Background

         Plaintiff Luis Manuel Hernandez (“L. Hernandez”) filed his Complaint in this case on August 3, 2017, bringing a claim for overtime wage violations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-216. See Dkt. No. 1.

         On September 29, 2017, Gilberto Hernandez (“G. Hernandez”) filed his notice of opt-in consent under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), claiming to be a similarly situated employee. See Dkt. No. 8.

         Plaintiff L. Hernandez then filed his Motion to Ratify on October 3, 2017, explaining that “Gilberto Hernandez has filed the requisite consent form to become a party to this lawsuit and a separate amended complaint need not be filed on his behalf” and requesting “that this Court ratify said opt-in consent form and deem Gilberto Hernandez as an opt-in plaintiff from the time of the filing of his opt-in notice with this Court.” Dkt. No. 9 at 2.

         Defendants then filed an answer and counterclaim on October 4, 2017, see Dkt. No. 10, and later filed a response in opposition to the Motion to Ratify on October 24, 2017, see Dkt. No. 13.

         On October 25, 2017, L. Hernandez and G. Hernandez together filed the First Amended Complaint Under 29 U.S.C. §§ 201- 216 Overtime Wage Violations on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See Dkt. No. 15.

         Legal Standards and Analysis

         It appears that, through the Motion to Ratify, L. Hernandez asks the Court to formally acknowledge G. Hernandez's joining this FLSA action as an opt-in plaintiff under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as of September 29, 2017.

         Defendants oppose as follows:

1. On September 29, 2017, Gilberto Hernandez (“G. Hernandez”), filed his opt-in notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (the “Opt-In Affidavit”), as asking to be added as a Plaintiff in the above-referenced cause, along with Plaintiff Luis Hernandez (“L. Hernandez”). See Exhibit A to ...

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.