MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this Fаir Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., plaintiffs’ allege that defendants have failed to pay time and one half for hоurs worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The matters now before the Court are Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss, Plaintiffs’ Motion For Aрproval Of Collective Action, Defendants’ Request To Abate, and Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Based on Statute Of Limitatiоns. On December 1, 1998, Magistrate Judge Bruce D. Pringle, pursuant to an Order Of Reference issued on April 11, 1997, recommended that: 1. Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss be denied; 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Approval Of Collective Action be granted; 3. Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Based On Statute Of Limitations be granted in part; 4. Plaintiff David Saunders’ claims be dismissed without prejudice; and 5. Defendants’ Request To Abate be denied as moot. Recommendation at 14. On December 11, 1998, defendants filed timely objections.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court has reviewed
de novo
the Magis
The key issue before the Court, and the only part of the Recommendation that the defendants have objected to, is whether multiple collective actions may be maintained under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and • if so, whether this Court should allow a second collective action to proceed. The individual facts of this case appear to be without contention. Plaintiffs are attempting to maintain a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) despite the fact that a separate collective action with identical issues is already before this Court.
See In re Wal-Mart Stores,
In his Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge examined the statute and plaintiffs’ situation and found that section 216 allows for the maintaining of a second collective action. More specifically, thе Magistrate Judge determined that it is in the interest of judicial efficiency for the Court to allow the second action. In contrast, defendants argue that section 216 incorporates Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3)(B) and (C), which indicate that a Court should decline to grant clаss certification when another court has certified a class encompassing the same individuals. Defendants assert thаt even if allowed, the Court should exercise its managerial authority and decline plaintiffs’ request due to the cost it would impose on defendants by making them defend two separate actions.
This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendаtion and declines to adopt defendants’ theory as to the application of Rule 23 to section 216 collective actions. Instead, the Court will follow the more flexible approach of examining the language and intended purрose of the statute itself in determining whether to allow a second collective action.
See Bayles v. American Med. Response of Colorado,
Having determined that the Magistrate Judge’s decision regarding defеndants’ motion to dismiss is accurate, the Court also agrees that plaintiffs’ motion for approval of collective action should be granted. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in
Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling,
Finally, as plaintiff has posed no objection to the Magistrate Judge’s determination regarding Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Based On The Statute Of Limitаtions, and the Court finds that the reasoning is correct, the Court also adopts this part of the Magistrate Judge’s decision. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendants’ Objections To Magistrate Pringle’s Findings And Recommendations are overruled. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Recommendation Of United States Magistrate Judge Bruce D. Pringle, is hereby accepted and adopted by the Court. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss is denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion For Approval Of Collective Action is granted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Based On The Statute Of Limitations is granted in part and that judgment be entered in favor of defendants and against Plaintiffs Barrow, Bartek, Bearden, Benson, Blaze, Blossom, Burdick, Cattoi, Christensen, Clore, Fragoules, Gallioto, Gambrall, Gatlyn, Harshaman, Hersh, Ho-henberger, Jeppeson, Kuklin, Lamb, Mas-lowsky, Mаthieu, Morris, McConnell, Mote, Newcomer, Powell, Priest, Rains, Rausher, Rhodes, Ross, Russell, Shah, Skaggs, Summers, Thomas, Wasilak, Williams and Wright, and their claims are dismissed with prejudice. It is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff David Saunders’ claims are dismissed without prejudice. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Request To Abate is denied as moot.