Cervantez

Cervantez v. Celestica Corp.

Good Law
618 F. Supp. 2d 1208·2009 WL 1482228·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47406
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 6, 2009Case EDCV 07-729-VAPCalifornia7,312 words

Opinion

Opinion

Phillips, J.

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANT ADECCO’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Motions for Summary Judgment brought by Plaintiffs and Defendant Adecco USA, Inc. came before the Court for hearing on April 20, 2009. After reviewing and considering all papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the Motion, as well as the arguments advanced by counsel at the hearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion and DENIES Defendant Adecco USA, Inc.’s Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jose Cervantez filed a Complaint on June 15, 2007 on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming as Defendants Celestica Corporation and Adecco USA, Inc. On October 5, 2007, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Strike the prayers for punitive damages in the Complaint.

On March 5, 2007, Plaintiffs Jose Cervantez, Rusty Reyes, George Santos, Maria Nguyen, and Marina Flores (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, asserting five claims: (1) failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.