Carpenter v. Speedy Concrete Cutting, Inc. et al, No. 8:2007cv00995 - Document 69 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER denying as moot 58 Motion for Hearing; denying as moot 67 Motion to set case management conference; granting 12 Motion to certify class; denying as moot 20 Motion for leave to file; denying 21 Motion in limine. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 9/29/2009. (JM)

Download PDF
Carpenter v. Speedy Concrete Cutting, Inc. et al Doc. 69 UNITED STATES MIDDLE TAMPA STEVEN CARPENTER, et DISTRICT DISTRICT OF COURT FLORIDA DIVISION al., Plaintiffs, v. CASE NO. SPEEDY INC., CONCRETE et 8:07-CV-995-T-17MAP CUTTING, al., Defendants. ORDER This cause Dkt. 4 Notice Dkt. 5 Consent Dkt. 12 Motion Dkt. 18 Response Dkt. 20 Motion for Dkt. 21 Motion in Dkt. 23 Consent Dkt. 24 Response before Dkt. 42 Dkt. Dkt. the Court - Consent to for Leave to Join 43 Consent to Join 48 Consent to Join Dkt. 50 Consent to Join Dkt. 57 Consent to Join Dkt. 58 Motion This case is Motion in and move to for File for Reply Hearing collective action under the Fair Labor for unpaid regular and/or Standards Act. Limine Plaintiffs opposition to Certification Limine Consent wages Join Conditional Join a to on: Join to overtime I. is move to exclude Plaintiffs' curative Motion notice to affidavits for filed by Conditional potential class Defendants in Certification members. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs argue Defendants' should be and response a have and no the to efforts claims Rule to in affidavits. disclosure of the Defendants or retaliation the basis and for of does no that Rules the members Labor that when and there the that there is that they to make exclude timely argue that, affidavits were were not Defendants' no need for a curative by both parties showing class members advised any of that are speech. Defendants' were misleading, affiants and they would apply to Local this Rule the within not the that suffer facts any which affidavits. that and complied with constitutionally protected discuss law pre-certification has been no to of ground to Plaintiffs argue Defendants to party entitled to class members are not failure Defendants that Court Standards Act. have the 26(a) due employees substantive therefore voluntary, notes not Fair affidavits, argue refusing the is further and improper. The Court actions, the with potential participation was class Plaintiffs harmless proper, that the argue to potential communications coercive of there Defendants argue these that of Defendants generally permitted, proposed prejudice. prejudiced. communications request of current Plaintiffs, instruction. violation Certification convince provided to were for Conditibnal misrepresentations is no attached to communication, and execution communications the Defendants suffers affidavits Plaintiffs to response 3.01(g), 25 Defendants' violation required disclosures days the the Motion notice improper Defendants Local that Fed.R.Civ.P. curative Defendants' fact, Motion. excluded based on 37(c)(l), issue the 4.04, collective concerning class action. In the formed Case No. absence 8:07-CV-995-T-17MAP of a court communications, The Court Rule II. may result for Motion as a collective Fair Labor concrete since as equipment 11, at their order of the last and to authorize approved Notice right to opt Join. In for argue that on four or in motions. Limine secured and all in ten Plaintiff members are the of the by performed any time trucks to case and compel (10) days of Court Members, of a numbers, court- concerning filing a their Consent approximately 150 to former Proposed Class. cannot companies at and telephone action by there in or who Class"), counsel's mailing opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion, establish foundation a Proposed Class. exist concrete cutting Each of employed Proposed Class address collection that were behalf, within this 216(b) Defendants' "Proposed of who of Sec. "Operators" Proposed Class separate geographical areas. Motion U.S.C. persons Defendants, Cutters with improper. comply with Local certification 29 certification of the providing clients to not the parties' the Defendants' {the allege contend that conditional all known home into this Concrete to Cutters'' by their Response Defendant of and who to All of are Certification Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs and current Act, identification including their denies pursuant homes expedited production failure conditional services 2004, been, Defendants' Instruction. "Concrete cutting June Court for action Standards Defendants the Conditional Plaintiffs move that in the denial Curative for communication, they may have the parties consideration, the Motion limiting whatever cautions 3.01(g) After order for the purpose services the corporate Defendants in entities of separate is run by a Case No. 8:07-CV-995-T-17MAP General Manager, Florida, and for except which has Speed Concrete Cutting a General Manager its Tampa operation. for Defendants procedure within each division differs Defendants their trucks argue home. that site or until time at of until shop, arrival shop they $20/hour on the further argue an $18/hour. Defendants Florida time pay of to report time they arrive shop in the Operators program that must the report employer. all Operators the truck shop, The the trucks are paid at $15/hour when conducted range shop, their evening. are paid take the work the pick up at at take by the from $15/hour to Speedy Concrete Cutting of employed approximately 20 Operators during the time. Defendants Plaintiffs, dispute and dispute inspection of vehicles the accuracy of Plaintiffs' the and equipment. lunch, employees have been Dispatch Operator has worked notify through lunch. listed by regarding Defendants dispute that regularly worked through told to job duties representations Operators an to who not who they arrive Employees Operators may argue employees Employees that respects. required to evening. apprenticeship The never that and maintained by employer. relevant at a weekly basis. complete Central the from the back in material required Dispatch. fueled Defendants in Orlando operation argue that policy and are allege from the they are paid arrive paid home to are serviced, they if they arrive the are the Operators Defendants their trucks home are its of Central and on argue the that occasions when Case A. No. 8:07-CV-995-T-17MAP Discussion Before the Court certification, the Court parties who want regard to State of the B. itself in conditional should determine to opt-in, job Florida (11th Cir. involves and who are requirements Department that and pay provisions. of Corrections, Employees Evidence of other employees who desire based on affidavits, existence of to Join state consents to settlement a F.2d 1562, 1567 Opt-In join, or Plaintiffs. indicate in this have case conducted to Amend, that "Speedy to expert evidence on the Plaintiffs Three are that and opt-in may be of be have filed Consents the basis the to the of to this party voluntarily bound by Employee is a part differentiation as that vary procedures to discretion of General control Operators' limited discovery. read of depositions clearly established Concrete and procedures of to to the policies which party evidence The which Want any judgment. comprise policies eleven the Motion operated. Inc., be or documentary which of remaining eight parties on consents in detail the Who similarly situated employees. Join lawsuit; ruling 942 Dabeoc v. 1991) . of The are other similarly-situated with Existence Consents there Cutting, Handbook the of Speedy in this apply to all location. according While to Managers, conditions of case, Defendants Court organized employment includes with no have that was and Cutting, according notes in entities Operators, location, the all are Court, other Concrete record which and how Inc.'7 The argued to the actual exercised from Case one No. 8:07-CV-995-T-17MAP location. Defendants declarations, affidavits argue and that the Consents Defendants have from employees stating to Join are unsworn submitted twenty-five their belief that the company correctly calculated their overtime. Plaintiffs the Plaintiffs' "notice" required to claims stage, allegations of are the and those standard want C. to that opt same job 3) Court title; whether time period; same policies practices In were the this Based on the which Consents include to Join, established that 4) considers: 1) 2) they worked whether the whether established 5) the case, and whether in the claimed by all members of Speedy Concrete Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, the in allegations the other Court employees Concrete the the plaintiffs the were same during are has Orlando, did not the the and same which similar. Proposed Class Cutters held subjected to actions Inc. all geographic and by the Plaintiffs and similarly these policies Cutting, Tampa are occurred same manner to which job title. Georgia; the the plaintiffs extent violations whether alleged violations same Savannah, the to Alleged Violation and practices, decision maker; constitute At in. the location; same have commonality between considering whether proposed class members situated, the Plaintiffs a the proposed class. lenient. and the Similarly Situated As In is of of the Verified Complaint, company-wide policies, concludes demonstrate hold the offices Florida, work in the in and same Case No. 8:07-CV-995-T-17MAP geographic location. same time period of Some 2004 "Consent to Join" and 2005, through 2007, and other "Consent" frame. disputed whether It is subjected to evidence FLA. General for Defendants' required delivery claims. There activity is is each discovery has no members however, were the decision-maker have alleged for required pre-trip for working heavy lunch, equipment to separate inspections; duty and through Defendants' four through specialized and non-payment and from that standard and the case of to 29 on it test for not support determining to an determined on in this case as Plaintiffs' whether employee's an principal its own facts. No to the factual basis of finds the that Plaintiffs Proposed Class for Conditional conditionally U.S.C. persons or Court are have similarly is Motion is all "Concrete Cutters" services the the members that action pursuant Standards Act be conducted Accordingly, This law does indispensable consideration, ORDERED the claims. established that cutting ultimate Plaintiffs case must been Plaintiffs' granted. allege a time Proposed Class delivery of of argue integral activities; situated. 1997 shop. Defendants After by one non-payment non-payment required states notices do not and practices; indicate the finding of uniform company-wide policies Managers. violations, equipment; for a one Consent all policies and carried out non-payment for same supports formulated various the notices Sec. "Operators," Defendants' certified 216(b) who were of the as or who at a Fair employed by behalf, 7 Certification is collective Labor Defendants as performed concrete any time since June Case 11, No. 8:07-CV-995-T-17MAP 2004, their and who Court Complaint has naming Winnick as Court granted numbers Defendants. directs to The confer to right Consent approval Upon to a Defendants last and equipment Plaintiffs Cutting, filing Inc. of provide known "Notice to All Join eleven order, denied as moot; into this Lawsuit, ORDERED that is to directs to opt within management to the further ORDERED that moot; trucks at file and an Amended Jeffrey the Amended Complaint, the home to identification addresses and of all telephone Plaintiffs. Court as leave Speedy Concrete Proposed Class members' their Defendants' homes. The the secured the to and It the Motion Set and Defendants Members'' action by is shall to concerning filing the proposed Notice filed within the Motion denied as moot. Proposed Class file parties and the Motion to Plaintiffs collective days. be the for a court further confer as eleven for Lave to for Hearing an days. File (Dkt. to It Reply 58) amended is is (Dkt. case further 20) is denied as Case Management Conference (Dkt. 67) Case No. 8:07-CV-995-T-17MAP DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this 29th day of September, 2009. A. United Copies to: All parties and counsel of record States

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.