Kirk Goltermann v. City of San Gabriel

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 12, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-09575
StatusUnknown

This text of Kirk Goltermann v. City of San Gabriel (Kirk Goltermann v. City of San Gabriel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kirk Goltermann v. City of San Gabriel, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

JS-6 1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 5 KIRK GOLTERMANN, et al., individually, | Case No. 2:19-cv-09575 JGB(PLAx) 6 || and on behalf of themselves and all other 7 similarly situated individuals, 3 Plaintiffs, RULE 68 JUDGMENT Action Filed: November 7, 2014 CITY OF SAN GABRIEL, a municipal 10 || corporation, Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Accepted: April 24, 2020 Defendant. 12 13 14 Pursuant to Rule 68(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, judgment is hereby entered under the terms of Defendant’s Second Rule 68 Offer of Judgment to Plaintiffs, 16 || which was timely accepted by Plaintiffs and filed with this Court on April 24, 2020. (Doc. 35). A true and correct copy of the Second Rule 68 Offer of Judgment to Plaintiffs is 1g || attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 19 The full and complete terms of the accepted Rule 68(a) Offer (Doc. 35) are hereby 20 || adopted as the full and complete Judgment of the Court. 1 JUDGMENT IS SO ENTERED 22 Dated: June 12, 2020 CLERK OF COURT 23 United State District Court 24 A AK 26 By; AS 4 M. Galvez, Deputy Clerk

28 -|- PTT BE G2 TINGCMENT _ Cace Na 9-10.64 NOZ7*5 TORIDPT Av)

1 ARTHUR A. HARTINGER (SBN 121521) Email: ahartinger@publiclawgroup.com 2 SPENCER J. WILSON (SBN 266938) Email: swilson@publiclawgroup.com 3 RYAN McGINLEY-STEMPEL (SBN 296182) 4 Email: rmcginleystempel@publiclawgroup.com RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP 5 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, California 94104 6 Telephone: (415) 848-7200 Facsimile: (415) 848-7320 7 8 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF SAN GABRIEL 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 12 KIRK GOLTERMANN; PHILIP Case No. 2:19-cv-09575 JGB(PLAx) 13 APPARIS; CHRISTIN BACKLEY; ERIC 14 CALISHER; BRADLEY DAVIS; CHRISTOPHER EAKMAN; 15 CHRISTOPHER LEE FETNER; JACOB SECOND RULE 68 OFFER OF GUSTAFSON; SEAN IRWIN; HRAG JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFFS; 16 JIVALAGIAN; GREGORY KERNODLE; NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE 17 JAMES MILLER; DAVID MILLIGAN; KEVIN MURPHY; ANTONIO NEGRETE; Action Filed: November 7, 2019 18 BRENT CURTIS PATTISON; SHANE SALAZAR; TAKAHIRO SUZUKI; 19 AARON TERRY; CUONG TRAN; DENNIS BARWICK; DERRICK 20 DOEHLER; BRYAN FRIEDERS; 21 VANESSA MURPHY; DAVID PACELA; ARTHUR STAFFORD; ERIK WALTON; 22 JORDAN MILLER; individually, and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly 23 situated individuals,

24 Plaintiffs, 25 v.

26 CITY OF SAN GABRIEL, a municipal corporation, 27 28 Defendant. 1 TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Defendant City of San Gabriel (“Defendant” or “City”) hereby offers to allow entry 3 of judgment against Defendant pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure as follows: 5 RECITALS 6 WHEREAS, this is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act 7 (“FLSA”); 8 WHEREAS Plaintiffs are a group of former or current firefighters employed by 9 Defendant City of San Gabriel who claim Defendant improperly excluded the value of the 10 City’s medical cafeteria plan, known as the Flexible Benefit Plan, from Plaintiffs’ FLSA 11 regular rate of pay, resulting in FLSA overtime underpayments; 12 WHEREAS, in Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 824 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2016), the 13 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the entire value of the City’s 14 Flexible Benefit Plan needed to be included in the FLSA regular rate of pay; 15 WHEREAS, Defendant previously served a Rule 68 offer on Plaintiffs which was 16 not accepted by Plaintiffs within the 14-day deadline, and is therefore deemed withdrawn 17 by operation of law; 18 WHEREAS, subsequent to serving the prior Rule 68 offer, an additional Plaintiff 19 filed papers to join this lawsuit, and his claims are addressed in this Second Rule 68 Offer; 20 and 21 WHEREAS, without admitting liability, in an effort to conserve litigation costs, 22 Defendant City, pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, agrees to 23 resolve this case by allowing judgment to be entered against the City, as follows: 24 NOW, THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWING, IT IS HEREBY 25 ADJUDGED THAT: 26 1. According to the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 27 824 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2016), prior to August 19, 2017, the City failed to include the value 28 of the City Flexible Benefit Plan in Plaintiffs’ FLSA regular rate of pay, which according 1 to the Ninth Circuit violated the FLSA. 2 2. Plaintiffs Philip Apparis, Dennis Barwick, Richard Beckman, Eric Calisher, 3 Bradley Davis, Derrick Doehler, Christopher Eakman, Christopher Fetner, Gregory 4 Fierro, Bryan Frieders, Kirk Goltermann, Charles Hisserich, Sean Irwin, James Miller, 5 Jordan Miller, David Milligan, Monte Mitchell, Kevin Murphy, Vanessa Murphy, 6 Antonio Negrete, Newton Ong, David Pacela, Brent Pattison, Arthur Stafford, Takahiro 7 Suzuki, Aaron Terry, Cuong Tran, and Erik Walton have each claimed entitlement to 8 unpaid overtime under the FLSA. Pursuant to this Rule 68 Offer, Defendant hereby offers 9 to allow judgment to be taken against Defendant in favor of each Plaintiff for the 10 following respective amounts: 11 Plaintiff Amount 12 APPARIS, PHILIP $15,101.00 13 BARWICK, DENNIS $5,322.52 14 BECKMAN, RICHARD $4,106.80 15 CALISHER, ERIC $12,736.84 16 DAVIS, BRADLEY $7,003.96 17 DOEHLER, DERRICK $70,369.72 18 EAKMAN, CHRISTOPHER $11,510.84 19 20 FETNER, CHRISTOPHER $4,970.24 21 FIERRO, GREGORY $9,994.64 22 FRIEDERS, BRYAN $4,231.44 23 GOLTERMANN, KIRK $25,184.84 24 HISSERICH, CHARLES $2,428.08 25 IRWIN, SEAN $25,816.16 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff Amount 2 MILLER, JAMES $14,659.64 3 MILLER, JORDAN $2,386.52 4 MILLIGAN, DAVID $9,648.92 5 MITCHELL, MONTE $14,096.60 6 MURPHY, KEVIN $9,974.96 7 MURPHY, VANESSA $13,165.56 8 NEGRETE, ANTONIO $19,307.52 9 10 ONG, NEWTON $18,005.80 11 PACELA, DAVID $16,022.92 12 PATTISON, BRENT $6,487.36 13 STAFFORD, ARTHUR $11,569.88 14 SUZUKI, TAKAHIRO $7,264.20 15 TERRY, AARON $14,105.76 16 TRAN, CUONG $11,679.00 17 WALTON, ERIK $8,409.44 18 TOTAL $375,561.16 19 20 21 3. The individual payments outlined in Paragraph 2 are based on the value of 22 the City’s Flexible Benefit Plan and overtime hours worked by each Plaintiff from 23 August 19, 2014 through August 18, 2017. Fifty percent of each of the above amounts is 24 and shall be characterized as back wages due to each Plaintiff and the other fifty percent 25 of each amount is and shall be characterized as liquidated damages. 26 4. Plaintiffs Christin Backley, Jacob Gustafson, Hrag Jivalagian, Gregory 27 Kernodle, Michael Rebolledo, and Shane Salazar were each hired by the City after 28 August 19, 2017, after the City adjusted its payroll practices to comply with the Flores 1 decision. These Plaintiffs are unable to establish entitlement to any relief from Defendant 2 and as such Defendant does not offer any amounts under this Rule 68 Offer to these 3 Plaintiffs. Defendant’s offer to Plaintiffs Backley, Gustafson, Jivalagian, Kernodle, 4 Rebolledo, and Salazar is a mutual waiver of costs and fees. 5 5. Plaintiffs Leonard Hayes and Megan McCormick are not current or former 6 employees of Defendant and Defendant does not offer any amounts under this Rule 68 7 Offer to these Plaintiffs. Defendant offers Plaintiffs Hayes and McCormick a mutual 8 waiver of costs and fees. 9 6. In addition to the amounts offered above, Defendant offers $100,000 to 10 Plaintiffs to compensate for all attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lang v. Gates
36 F.3d 73 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Charles Amati v. City of Woodstock
176 F.3d 952 (Seventh Circuit, 1999)
Danny Flores v. City of San Gabriel
824 F.3d 890 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kirk Goltermann v. City of San Gabriel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirk-goltermann-v-city-of-san-gabriel-cacd-2020.