Shell v. Pie Kingz, LLC, No. 1:2019cv02043 - Document 22 (N.D. Ohio 2019)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not met his burden of making a factual showing that his alleged claims are representative of the claims of the proposed class. Additional discovery is required before such a determination can be properly made. The Plaintiff's Motions for Conditional Class Certification is, therefore, DENIED at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Related Doc # 13 ). Judge Donald C. Nugent on 11/27/2019. (M,S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Shell v. Pie Kingz, LLC Doc. 22 IN THE NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTEN DIVISION JASON SHELL, et al., Plaintifs, V. PIE NGZ, LLC, et al., Deendnts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1: 19 CV 2043 JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT MEMORNDUM OPINION ND ORDER This matter is beore the Court on the named Plaintifs Motion to Send Notice to Similrly Situated Employees. (ECF #13). Deendant opposed the motion, nd Plaintif iled a Reply in suppot of his position. (ECF #17, 19). For the reasons that ollow, Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED. I. PROCEDUAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Nmed Plaintif, Jason Shell, brought this putative class and collection action on behalf of himself nd "all others\ similrly situated delivery drivers" or the Westside Cleveland area Jet's Pizza stores. He claims that the Deendants had multiple policies and/or practices in place at its stores that violated the Fair Labor Standrds Act. The alleged practices and policies included paying less than minimum wage or the perormnce of duties that were urelated to Dockets.Justia.com inormation rom other employees. He merely states that he does "not recall ever being inormed by Deendants of the requirements or taking a tip credit." This statement overstates what was required in the orm of notiication, and fails to allege that the information required was withheld, let alone withheld universally rom all delivery drivers. Deendants have also represented trough their counsel they do post the information required to notiy employees about the tip credit at all of their locations. Although Plaintif may have met the pleading requirements to state a claim or potential violations of the FLSA, he has not provided suficient actual support to meet the treshold requirements or conditional certiication at this time. The Court has already set a act discovery deadline or May 20, 2019. The certiication issue may be re-visited at the end of this discovery period if the process uncovers suicient actual support or class consideration. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court inds that the Plaintif has not met his burden of making a actual showing that his alleged claims are representative of the claims of the proposed class. Additional discovery is required beore such a determination can be properly made. The Plainti's Motions or Conditional Class Certiication is, thereore, DENIED at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: l ir, 10,7 United States District -8-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
