Free Joint Status Report - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00299-MCW

Document 13

Filed 06/02/2008

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

PAUL G. JASTER, et al. Plaintiffs,
V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 07-299C (Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams)

JOINT STATUS REPORT Pursuant to the Order issued by the Court on November 30, 2007, plaintiffs and defendant respectfully submit the following joint status report: 1. Since the filing of the parties' last joint status report, the parties have continued to

discuss the manner in which payments should be calculated based upon a previously negotiated settlement which would apply to this case and 12 other cases involving similar claims. These discussions principally concern certain situations that may be relevant to a limited number of plaintiffs in these cases. Pursuant to these discussions, the parties agreed that plaintiffs in these cases would submit to defendant a statement of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") hours they claim to have worked during the times in question (other than home-to-work driving time), and defendant would compute the amount of back pay that would be appropriate based upon these submissions. The parties would then discuss whether the amount computed by defendant would be adequate to resolve plaintiffs' claims, other than claims for home-to-work driving time, which would not be covered by the settlement.

Case 1:07-cv-00299-MCW

Document 13

Filed 06/02/2008

Page 2 of 4

2.

On March 27, 2008, plaintiffs' counsel forwarded to defendant statements of FLSA

hours for plaintiffs in this case and 55 other plaintiffs in various other cases. To date, defendant has completed and forwarded computations for 59 plaintiffs, including the four plaintiffs in this case. 3 As stated in our last status report, appellants' petition for writ of certiorari filed in

Stephen S. Adams~ et al. v. United States, No. 70-116 (July 27, 2007), seeking review of the Federal Circuit's March 14, 2007 ruling against the plaintiffs concerning the home-to-work driving issue involved, was denied on January 7, 2008. Since that time, defendant has filed dispositive motions concerning home-to-work driving claims that remain to be adjudicated in Adams, as well as hometo-work driving claims in several other cases, some of which, like this case, involved diversion investigators employed by the Drug Enforcement Administration. The diversion investigator cases in which such motions have been filed to date are Grush v. United States, No. 07-232C; Breiner v. United States~ No. 07-249C; Carrion v. United States, No. 07-626C; Crusan v. United States, No. 07-434C; Federico v. United States, No. 08-44C; Stocum v. United States, No. 07-03(2; and Hamilton v. United States~ No. 06-680C. Diversion investigator claims, among many others, are also involved in Adams. Discovery has also been conducted in some of the diversion investigator cases. 4. Defendant anticipates filing a dispositive motion concerning the home-to-work

driving claims in this case on or before July 7, 2008.

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00299-MCW

Document 13

Filed 06/02/2008

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted, GREGORY G. KATSAS Acting Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director JULES BERNSTEIN Bernstein & Lipsett, P.C. 1920 L Street, N.W. Suite 303 Washington, D.C. 20036 OF COUNSEL: LINDA LIPSETT Tel: (202) 296-1798 Fax: (202) 29

Deputy Director

James & Hoffman, P.C. 1101 17th Street, N.W. Suite 510 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 496-0500 Fax: (202) 496-0555 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: June ~,,2008

SHALOM BRILLIANT Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 616-8275 Fax: (202) 305-7643 Attorneys for Defendant Dated: June ;2..--, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00299-MCW

Document 13

Filed 06/02/2008

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of June, 2008, a copy of the foregoing "Joint Status Report" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

s/Shalom Brilliant