Pitts

Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc.

Good Law

653 F.3d 1081·2011 WL 3449473·17 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1850·80 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 243·2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16368

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 9, 201110-15965California7,101 words

Opinion

Bybee, J.

We must decide, inter alia, whether a rejected offer of judgment for the full amount of a putative class representative’s individual claim moots a class action complaint where the offer precedes the filing of a motion for class certification. We hold that it does not.

I

In April 2009, Gareth Pitts filed a class action complaint in Nevada state court against his employer, Terrible Herbst, Inc. (“Terrible”). The complaint alleged that Terrible failed to pay Pitts and other similarly-situated employees overtime and minimum wages and listed three causes of action: (1) a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) (Count 1); (2) a class action for violations of Nevada labor laws (Count 2); and (3) a class action for breach of contract (Count 3). Terrible removed the case to federal court in May 2009.

In July 2009, the district court entered a scheduling order that called for all discovery to be concluded by January 2010. That same day, Pitts served Terrible with a request for production of documents, including “a list of the names and addresses of all of [its] employees who work or have worked in [its] retail locations…

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.