Jane Roes 1-2 v. SFBSC Management, LLC

Good Law
77 F. Supp. 3d 990·2015 WL 163570·24 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 108·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4006
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 2015Case No. 14-3616 (LB); ECF No. 17California3,119 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beeler, J.

ORDER ON ANONYMITY & SEALING

INTRODUCTION

This is a dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 , and various California labor laws. (Am. Compl. — ECF No. 11 at 1-2, ¶ 1.) It is a putative collective action under the FLSA and a putative class action under Rule 23. (Id. at 18-19, ¶¶ 60, 63-64.) 1 The plaintiffs formerly worked for defendant SFBSC Management, LLC as “exotic dancers” — which is to say, “nude *992 and semi-nude” dancers — at various nightclubs. (ECF No. 11 at 1-3, ¶¶ 1, 7.) They claim that SFBSC wrongfully ■ classified them as independent contractors and thus denied them the minimum wage and other benefits to which the FLSA entitled them. (Id. at 1-2, ¶ 1.) They also claim that SFBSC violated other federal and state labor laws. (Id.). They seek to represent themselves and anyone who, during a stated period, worked for SFBSC as exotic dancers in California. (Id. at 1-2 (¶ 1), 18-19 (¶¶ 60, 63-64).)

The plaintiffs ask the court to do two things: First, to allow them'to proceed under “Jane Roe” pseudonyms; and, second, to allow future plaintiffs to join this suit by filing their FLSA consents under seal. (ECF No. 17 at 1.) (Plaintiffs in…

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.