McKinnon v. City of Merced
1:18-cv-01124
E.D. Cal.May 31, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Nathaniel McKinnon et al.) sued the City of Merced under the FLSA seeking to maintain a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and filed a stipulation requesting conditional certification for notice purposes.
- The parties jointly submitted a stipulation but provided no evidentiary support with the filing.
- Ninth Circuit district courts apply a two-step approach to FLSA collective certification: a lenient, preliminary conditional-certification stage and a later decertification stage after discovery.
- At the preliminary stage courts require a modest factual showing — some factual basis beyond mere complaint allegations — that putative opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated.
- Although the defendant did not oppose conditional certification, the court stated it must independently evaluate the factual record.
- The court ordered Plaintiffs to supplement the record with supporting evidence by June 14, 2019, or state that they will not do so; the stipulation was held in abeyance pending that submission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should grant conditional certification for notice under the FLSA | Stipulation requesting conditional certification to facilitate notice; lenient showing suffices | City did not oppose conditional certification (no substantive opposition) | Court requires more than the stipulation/complaint: Plaintiffs must supplement the record with factual evidence to justify conditional certification |
| Whether the court may rely on the parties' stipulation without independent factual review | Stipulation implies conditional certification is appropriate | Defendant’s non-opposition does not waive court's duty to assess record | Court held it must examine the factual record and ordered Plaintiffs to submit evidentiary support or decline to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Saravia v. Dynamex, Inc., 310 F.R.D. 412 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (describing the two-step FLSA collective-certification approach and the lenient preliminary standard)
- Kress v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 263 F.R.D. 623 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (noting courts need not consider defendant evidence at the first-stage conditional-certification inquiry)
- Leuthold v. Destination America, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 462 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (discussing the conditional-certification standard)
- Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 530 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (requiring some factual basis beyond complaint allegations at the conditional-certification stage)