A former Safelite AutoGlass technician who sued the company alleging he had been denied overtime wages has asked both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court of Central California to dismiss his case. He was seeking class action status; however, no other named plaintiffs appeared.
In his lawsuit filed against Safelite in 2010, Joseph Perez, a California resident, alleged that he and other associates in the state had been denied overtime wages he believes they were owed for working more than eight hours per day and 40 hours per week.
“Perez’s individual claims alleged in the complaint against defendant Safelite Group, Inc. are hereby dismissed,” the U.S. District Court judge wrote on March 6, 2012.
However, the judge added, “that plaintiff specifically retains a personal stake in the class claims as a representative of the class.”
Perez appealed the dismissal and an order of the District Court entered on April 22, 2011, denying plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
The case was not selected for mediation in Circuit Court.
In mid-January, the U.S. District Court asked both parties “to show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed for lack of a named plaintiff.
“The parties timely responded on January 23, 2015. Upon consideration of court records and the parties’ responses, the court hereby dismisses the action in its entirety for lack of a named plaintiff,” according to the court’s decision in early February.
“In response to the court’s order to show cause dated January 15, 2015, plaintiff Joseph Perez respectfully requests that this action should be dismissed,” his attorney wrote in a U.S. District Court filing.
Both parties then asked the Circuit Court to dismiss the appeals.
“The parties have agreed that each side shall bear its own costs and fees on appeal,” according to the court document.