From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

RUDY v. CONSOLIDATED RESTAURANT COMPANIES INC

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Sep 3, 2010
Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-0904-L (N.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-0904-L.

September 3, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiff Colin C. Rudy ("Plaintiff") filed this class action suit against multiple defendants in the restaurant business on May 29, 2008. Plaintiff contends that Defendants were in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring its employee waiters, such as Plaintiff, to pay a portion of their tips to the house. The court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney on December 18, 2008, for pretrial management. Multiple Defendants were terminated in this action over the past six months, but still pending are: 1) Plaintiff[']s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and 2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, both filed May 3, 2010. Magistrate Judge Stickney filed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") on August 18, 2010. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.

The magistrate judge recommends that the court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiff[']s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. His recommendation relies on the record in this case, applicable law, and analysis of Plaintiff's claims. The court has conducted its own review of the Report, and finds it to be well-reasoned and well-taken. The court agrees with the findings of the magistrate judge.

Having reviewed the filings, record, applicable law, and the Report in this case, the court determines that the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are correct. They are therefore accepted as those of the court. Accordingly, the court grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Plaintiff[']s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Defendants have shown entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this case. Plaintiff's claims are without merit and accordingly dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment will issue by separate document.

It is so ordered this 3rd day of September, 2010.


Summaries of

RUDY v. CONSOLIDATED RESTAURANT COMPANIES INC

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Sep 3, 2010
Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-0904-L (N.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2010)
Case details for

RUDY v. CONSOLIDATED RESTAURANT COMPANIES INC

Case Details

Full title:COLIN C. RUDY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Sep 3, 2010

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-0904-L (N.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2010)

Citing Cases

Harville v. Tex. A&M Univ.

Therefore, “[t]he ultimate question is whether the individual had ‘supervisory authority over the complaining…

George v. Go Frac, LLC

"On the other hand, courts generally reject the belief that a low-level supervisor of other employees can be…