Sablowsky

I. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdictional Issues In the parties’ joint submission, Defendants argue that “the Court has no jurisdiction to order notices sent to employees of third parties who are not defendants in this lawsuit.” Dkt. 55 at 4. The parties also disagree about the scope of the Court’s order at dkt. 54 granting collective action certification. First, by way of clarification, the Court’s order at dkt. 54 granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification of “a group of exempt-classified Branch Managers, and employees in similar positions with different job titles, [] who worked at any of Defendants’ [] branch locations nationwide at any time from May 25, 2020, (i.e., three years prior to the filing of the Complaint []) through the present.” Dkt. 54 at 3 (citing dkt. 35 at 6), 9–10. The proposed collective includes branch managers “who worked at any Auto-Chlor System branch nationwide.” Dkt. 35 at 20. Defendants contend that “[t]he Notice should be limited to the branches of the named Defendants.” Dkt. 58 at 3. Defendants also argue that the

Court made “no finding of similarly situated beyond the named Defendants.” Dkt. 55 at 4.…