United States District Court, D. Colorado
October 6, 2014
DENA M. CANNON, JUIANA VAN TUIL, and SUZANNE BOLDEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
TIME WARNER NY CABLE LLC, Defendant.
ORDER ON RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION (ECF NO. 104)
RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States Magistrate Judge's "Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and for Court Assisted Notice under Authority of Sperling v. Hoffman-Laroche, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (DOCKET NO. 84)" ("Recommendation") (ECF No. 104) dated September 5, 2014. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action (ECF No. 84) be granted, with modifications. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by this reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties they had fourteen days after service of the Recommendation to file any objections. The time permitted for any objections has expired and no objections to the Recommendation have been filed.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, along with relevant parts of the Court file, and considered the applicable law. The Court concludes the Magistrate Judge's analysis is thorough and sound, and there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) Advisory Committee's Notes ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) ("In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate."). However, as the parties agreed that the class period should extend three (3) years back from the date the Court grants class certification, the Notice shall be so modified. In addition, the Court notes that it was recommended a third-party administrator be used for sending notices, receiving opt-in forms, and filing them with the Court, but the recommended Notice provides for the return of the Consent Forms to Plaintiffs' counsel and, accordingly, for counsel to file them with the Court. No party objected. Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 104), as modified herein, is ADOPTED as an order of this Court;
2. That the Plaintiffs' "Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and for Court Assisted Notice under Authority of Sperling v. Hoffman-LaRoche, 493 U.S. 165 (1989)" (ECF No. 84) is GRANTED to the extent stated in the Recommendation and as modified herein;
3. That the Notice approved to be provided to potential opt-in plaintiffs is appended to the end of this Order; and
4. That within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order:
a. Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with the names and last known addresses of all current and former Customer Service Representatives who work or worked, as the case may be, at the Bijou Street Call Center, Colorado Springs, Colorado, at any time since October 6, 2011; and
b. The parties shall jointly retain a third-party administrator to administer the notice process, with each side to pay 50% of the cost of such third-party service. The third-party administrator shall be responsible for mailing, by first class mail, the approved Notice to each potential opt-in plaintiff identified in paragraph 4.a. above.