Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Creazzo v. Lenderlive Network, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

October 17, 2014

DOROTHY MURPHY and HEATHER CREAZZO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,


R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA [ECF No. 28].[1] The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.


The plaintiffs have brought this suit alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 2101, et seq. and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. This motion is limited to the FLSA claims, and as such only those claims will be discussed.

The plaintiffs, Ms. Murphy and Ms. Creazzo, performed work as underwriters for the defendant employer, LenderLive Network, Inc. ("LenderLive"). LenderLive is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business in Colorado. It provides mortgage services for financial institutions in the United States. LenderLive's underwriters are nonexempt employees under the FLSA, meaning that they are entitled to overtime pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The plaintiffs allege that LenderLive failed to pay them and similarly situated underwriters overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. In particular, they contend that the defendant "intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA" as part of its regular business practice with respect to the following:

A. instructing Plaintiffs and [those similarly situated to] clock in and out at times prescribed by Defendant, regardless of the actual hours worked; B. willfully ignoring that Plaintiffs and [those similarly situated] worked beyond the hours prescribed by the Defendant ( i.e., "off the clock"); C. requiring that Plaintiffs and [those similarly situated] meet draconian quotas and goals that they could [be] meeting only if they worked off the clock in excess of 40 hours per workweek; and D. willfully failing to record all of the time that Defendant's employees, including Plaintiffs and [those similarly situated], have worked for the benefit of Defendant.

Complaint [ECF No. 1] ¶ 25. The plaintiffs ask that the Court conditionally certify this claim as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and that the conditional class consist of all mortgage underwriters employed by LenderLive between November 18, 2010 and the present. This date range complies with a three-year statute of limitations for alleged willful violations of the FLSA, relating back to the date the Complaint was filed, November 18, 2013.

In support of its motion, the plaintiffs have filed eleven declarations of former LenderLive underwriters from a variety of offices nationwide. The declarations explain that LenderLive had instituted a daily or weekly underwriting quota, and that the underwriters had been told that failure to meet their quotas would result in adverse action including termination. Murphy Decl. [ECF No. 30-1] ¶¶ 13, 16; Creazzo Decl. [ECF No. 30-2] ¶¶ 13, 15; Nelson Decl. [ECF No. 30-3] ¶¶ 11, 15; Jancevich Decl. [ECF No. 30-4] ¶¶ 11, 15; Jud Decl. [ECF No. 30-5] ¶¶ 11, 17; Donaldson Decl. [ECF No. 30-6] ¶¶ 11, 16;[2] Morytko Decl. [ECF No. 30-7] ¶¶ 11, 16; Binns Decl. [ECF No. 30-8] ¶¶ 13, 15; Allen Decl. [ECF No. 30-9] ¶¶ 11, 15; Hill Decl. [ECF No. 30-10] ¶¶ 11, 15; Motley Decl. [ECF No. 30-11] ¶¶ 11, 15.

Nearly all of the declarants maintain that their managers knew of the uncompensated overtime either because the underwriters had regular discussions with them concerning the need to work "off the clock" to meet their quotas, or through regular monitoring conducted by the managers. Murphy Decl. ¶ 20; Creazzo Decl. ¶ 18; Nelson Decl. ¶ 18; Jud Decl. ¶ 20; Donaldson Decl. ¶ 19; Morytko Decl. ¶ 20; Binns Decl. ¶ 19; Allen Decl. ¶ 19; Motley Decl. ¶ 18. Each of the declarants further avows that she regularly or occasionally worked over 40 hours per week without any additional compensation, including overtime pay. Murphy Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Creazzo Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Nelson Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Jancevich Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Jud Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Donaldson Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Morytko Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Binns Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Allen Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Hill Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Motley Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. Finally, one declarant has sworn that her manager often manually changed her time records. Allen Decl. ¶ 20.

The defendant opposes conditional certification on the grounds that the plaintiffs "do not identify a decision, policy, or plan that violates the FLSA, and none exists." [ECF No. 33 at 2]. According to the defendant, LenderLive had a written policy requiring employees to seek pre-approval before working overtime, but that any overtime work performed without pre-approval would still be paid subject to a discussion about proper procedure. The defendant does not address allegations that its managers would set impossibly high quotas that were to be accomplished within 40 hours each week in order to avoid paying overtime, except to say that these individuals must have been "rogue" managers that did not act pursuant to the company's policy. LenderLive insists that it "has never discouraged employees from reporting actual hours worked." Id. at 3. Instead, it claims that it paid over $1.2 million in overtime to its underwriters in the three years preceding this suit, which, it insists, "establishes that there is no common decision, policy or plan to deny underwriters overtime." Id. at 10. The defendant provides support for these positions through four declarations. [ECF Nos. 33-1 and 33-3 through 33-5].


The FLSA requires that nonexempt employees be paid overtime compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). At a minimum, employers must pay an overtime wage equal to one and one-half times the employee's hourly rate. Id. The FLSA authorizes private individuals to recover damages for violations of these overtime provisions in the amount of the unpaid wages and, in some circumstances, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The FLSA further provides, in relevant part:

An action to recover the liability [for unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages] may be maintained against any employer... in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of ...

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.