Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP announced today that the City of San Diego, at a March 27, 2007 status conference, requested additional time to prepare to respond to the Plaintiffs' recently-filed summary judgment motion in the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") lawsuit Abbe, et al. v. City of San Diego, before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. On March 16, 2007, the firm filed a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to review and come to an affirmative decision as to the Plaintiffs' claims regarding the City's willful and deliberate failure and refusal to properly compensate them for all hours worked. The named Plaintiffs in the Abbe case include approximately 1,300 current or former San Diego Police Officers.
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. (BusinessWire EON) March 30, 2007 --
Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP announced today that the City of San
Diego, at a March 27, 2007 status conference, requested additional time
to prepare to respond to the Plaintiffs’
recently-filed summary judgment motion in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)
lawsuit Abbe, et al. v. City of San Diego, before the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California. On March 16, 2007, the
firm filed a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to review
and come to an affirmative decision as to the Plaintiffs’
claims regarding the City’s willful and
deliberate failure and refusal to properly compensate them for all hours
worked. The named Plaintiffs in the Abbe case include approximately
1,300 current or former San Diego Police Officers.
Christopher Nissen, a Senior Associate with Castle, Petersen & Krause,
LLP, commented: “It is not entirely uncommon
for a defendant to request additional time to conduct discovery in order
to respond to a summary judgment motion. What is remarkable in this
instance is that the City was given notice at the beginning of the year
that we intended to file this summary judgment motion –
yet the City has conducted virtually no discovery at all. In contrast,
earlier this week we served discovery responses for over 400 plaintiffs,
with more responses to follow shortly.” Mr.
Nissen added: “It is unfortunate that the
City has decided to pursue the litigation, when previously it appeared
that the City was receptive to discussing options for settling this
dispute. The position taken by the City at the Abbe status
conference leaves me questioning whether the City ever gave settlement
serious consideration, or whether those discussions were just another
example of tactical delay.”
Anthony Jenkins, an Associate Attorney with Castle, Petersen & Krause,
LLP stated: “The summary judgment motion
filed on March 16 with the Court was the first of two filings. The firm
is preparing and will file with the court summary judgment motions on
the issues of liability for federal constitutional violations regarding
the impairment of a contract, under the Contracts Clause, and the taking
of property without just compensation, under the Takings Clause.
Additionally, Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP will seek summary judgment
striking the City’s affirmative defenses
based on exhaustion of administrative remedies and partial exemption
from overtime provisions of the FLSA.”
The Abbe lawsuit asserts that the San Diego Police Department
required the Officers to work before and after their regular shifts and
through “Code 7”
meal periods for the benefit of the City of San Diego without
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
The required activities include performing pre- and post-shift
responsibilities (including the donning and doffing of protective gear);
preparing for court appearances; completing arrest and investigation
reports; and various other required tasks.
The Abbe case is one of three cases that Castle, Petersen &
Krause, LLP is litigating on behalf of San Diego Police Officers and the
San Diego Police Officers Association. Aaron, et al. v. Aguirre, City
of San Diego, et al. and SDPOA v. Michael Aguirre, City of San
Diego, et al. address the City’s
underfunding of the San Diego City Employee Retirement System, the
mishandling by the City of the police officers’
pension contributions and other issues, including claims of breach of
fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud, breach of contract, retaliation and
conspiracy to commit civil rights violations. More information on these
lawsuits can be found in the Litigation section of the firm’s
web site: www.cpk-law.com.
About Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP
The law firm of Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP, headquartered in Newport
Beach, California, specializes in litigating labor and employment law
and business law matters. The firm’s areas of
focus within labor and employment include civil rights, labor relations,
contract negotiations, disciplinary actions, FLSA, California labor law,
discrimination, retaliation, wage and hour issues, and wrongful
termination. Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP has a near 30-year history
of representing public and private industry employees and their
associations in contract negotiations, disciplinary actions, civil
rights claims, and class action lawsuits related to wage and hours
matters. The firm also has a history of success in recovering overtime
wages from public and private employers through FLSA class action
litigation, including recent cases against the City of Los Angeles,
numerous other public entities and companies in the hospitality and
fitness industries. Additionally, Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP
provides its clients counsel in the areas of construction defect,
intellectual property, product liability and first and third party
insurance litigation, as well as personal injury claims. More
information on Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP can be found at www.cpk-law.com.
Trackback URL: http://www.prweb.com/pingpr.php/SG9yci1QaWdnLUNyYXMtRmFsdS1NYWduLVplcm8=
|
