Amaraut

Amaraut v. Sprint/United Management Company

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaNovember 4, 20193:19-cv-00411California2,153 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

24 On February 28, 2019, Plaintiff Vladimir Amaraut initiated this action by filing a 25 Collective and Class Action Complaint against Defendant Sprint/United Management 26 Company, bringing claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. 27 §§ 201 et seq., and California state wage and hour laws. (ECF No. 1). On March 7, 2019, 28 September 11, 2019, September 12, 2019, September 13, 2019, and September 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed Notices of Filing Consents to Join. (ECF Nos. 3, 33-35, 37). On November 1, 2019, Plaintiffs Vladimir Amaraut, Katherine Almonte, Corbin Beltz, Kristopher Fox, Dylan McCollum, and Quinn Myers filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 45-1, Exhibit 1). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiff and the putative Collective for all hours worked and failing to pay the legally mandated overtime premium for such work and/or minimum wage. On November 1, 2019, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Conditionally Certify the Collective and Facilitate Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (ECF No. 46). II. DISCUSSION Section 216(b) of the FLSA provides a…

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.