Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, Inc.
Decision Date | 07 March 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 88 C 6965.,88 C 6965. |
Citation | 731 F. Supp. 872 |
Parties | Alfonso AVITIA, Artemio Villafana, Daniel P. Robert, Lisa Tape, Albert Allen, Jaime Merlo, Thomas Delany, and Parvis (a/k/a Michael) Khania, Plaintiffs, v. The METROPOLITAN CLUB OF CHICAGO, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Ernest T. Rossiello, Ernest T. Rossiello & Assoc., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Don E. Glickman and Andrew J. Fisher, Rudnick & Wolfe, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
Before the court are the objections of the plaintiffs to the report and recommendation of Magistrate James T. Balog denying plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction. For the following reasons, the court adopts the magistrate's report and recommendation.
A short history of the plaintiffs' search for a preliminary injunction in this case is in order. Initially, this action was assigned to the call of Judge Marshall. Plaintiffs' original amended complaint based jurisdiction upon 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, par. 1. In the prayer for relief, plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, par. 6C. Defendants objected, claiming that plaintiffs had no authority to seek injunctive relief under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Strike, p. 3. Judge Marshall agreed with this and struck plaintiffs' prayer for a preliminary injunction. Order of October 24, 1988.
On December 12, 1988, this action was transferred from the call of Judge Marshall to this court. Despite Judge Marshall's order, plaintiff submitted a pleading entitled "Motion to Set for Trial or for a Hearing on Temporary Reinstatement Pursuant to Title 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)." The court continued the motion until January 26, 1989. On that date, in open court, the following colloquy took place:
After ruling on this issue, the court recommended referral of the action to Magistrate Balog for all pre-trial issues on March 7, 1989, and the case was transferred. On March 31, 1989, plaintiffs filed an "Application for Preliminary Injunction", seeking relief under 29 U.S.C. sections 215(a)(3) and 216(b). Plaintiffs' Application, p. 1. This court set a briefing schedule and referred the application to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frazier v. Courter
...Given my decision on the defendant's other points, it is not necessary to address this issue. 3. In Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, Inc., 731 F.Supp. 872 (N.D.Ill.1990), the court held that private parties may not seek a preliminary injunction reinstating them to their jobs pending ......
-
Bailey v. Gulf Coast Transp., Inc.
...216(b) are restricted to recovering back wages and liquidated damages." 12 F.Supp.2d at 843. Similarly, Avitia v. Metro. Club of Chicago, Inc., 731 F.Supp. 872 (N.D.Ill.1990), denies an application for a preliminary injunction to prevent an allegedly retaliatory termination under the FLSA. ......
-
In re USM Technology Corp.
...435 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 1463, 55 L.Ed.2d 503 (1978); Wirtz v. Jones, 340 F.2d 901, 903-05 (5th Cir.1965); Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, Inc., 731 F.Supp. 872 (N.D.Ill.1990); EEOC v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 365 F.Supp. 1105 (E.D.Pa.1973), aff'd, 506 F.2d 735 (3d Cir. Eve......
-
Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, Inc., 90-1581
...on behalf of your clients; and if it is to be brought at all, it should be brought by the Secretary of Labor. Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, 731 F.Supp. 872 (N.D.Ill.1990) (order denying plaintiffs' second application for preliminary injunction, reporting order denying plaintiffs' ......