Robertson v. Whitman Consulting Organization, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02508-RM-KLM ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WHITMAN CONSULTING ORGANIZATION, INC., Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ In this case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix has issued a recommendation (ECF No. 45) to grant Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification (ECF No. 31). Defendant filed an objection to the recommendation (ECF No. 46), but subsequent discussions between the parties led to the filing of a stipulated motion to modify the recommendation (ECF No. 47).

In the recommendation, the magistrate judge concluded that Defendant should have to post a notice and consent form “on all jobsites where putative class members are currently working, including those jobsites that are owned and operated by Defendant’s clients” (ECF No. 45 at 10). However, the parties agree that fulfilling this requirement would be impractical because Defendant’s employees regularly work on streets or sidewalks or in open fields servicing natural gas lines and other types of lines. Consequently, the parties propose modifying the recommendation to require Defendant to post the notice and consent form at only four physical locations—two established worksites near Blackhawk, Colorado, and St. Paul, Minnesota, and two offices in Thornton, Colorado, and Rifle, Colorado. The Court agrees that modifying the recommendation makes sense under the circumstances.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to modify the recommendation, and Defendant’s objection is moot. As there is no longer any objection to the recommendation, the Court may review it under any standard the Court deems appropriate. See Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis was thorough and sound with respect to granting conditional certification to Plaintiffs putative class and authorizing the proposed notice. And the Court discerns no clear error on the face of the record. The recommendation, as modified, is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to modify (ECF No. 47), DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s objection (ECF No. 46), and ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the recommendation (ECF No. 45), as modified herein.

DATED this 28th day of August, 2020.

BY THE COURT: United States District Judge