Lauren Rother v. Leslie Lupenko

Good Law
515 F. App'x 672
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 12, 201311-35922, 11-35953California2,291 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Following a jury trial, Defendants Leslie Lupenko and Telelanguage, Inc. (“Defendants”), appeal from several of the district court’s rulings in this Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), collective action. Plaintiffs Lauren Rother and other members of the collective action (“Plaintiffs”) crossappeal. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1831 and 1367; we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here, except as necessary to explain our decision. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

I. Defendants’ Appeal

1. Defendants contend that the district court abused its discretion in imposing discovery sanctions against them. A district court has broad discretion to impose sanctions where a party flouts its discovery obligations. See Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905-06 (9th Cir.2002); Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b). We will defer to the reasonable exercise of that discretion so long as we are able to discern from the record why and how that discretion has been exercised. See Primus Auto. Fin. Servs. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648-49 (9th Cir.1997). Because the…

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.