Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado


File Size: 83.7 kB
Pages: 4
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 666 Words, 3,517 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/20788/380-8.pdf

Download Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado ( 83.7 kB)


Preview Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:03-cv-02485-MSK-PAC

Document 380-8

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT G

MRR-20-2005(MON) 05: 02

Case 1:03-cv-02485-MSK-PAC

Document 380-8

Filed 03/29/2006
(FRX)330 239 2721

Page 2 of 4

P. 001/003

IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORAO MAGISTRTE JUDGE PATRCIA A. COAN
Civil Action No. 03-MK-2485 (PAC)

CAMILLE MELONAKS-KURZ , et al.
Plaintiff(s),

v. HEARTLAN HOME FINANCE, INC.,

Defendat.

Affrmation Under Oath ofRQ,n Gundel
Comes now, Ron Gundel, who states and afs as follows:

1. I am over 18 yeas of age, and competent to testify as to the matter contaed herein.

2. I was employed as a loan offcer by Hearand Home Finance, Inc., ("HH" or "the
Company") from approxiately Januar 4, 1999, to October 4, 2002. I had thee

supersors/braneh managers during that time perod.

3. As a loan officer, I used individual judgment and discretion on a reguar basis each day. i
advised people on thei loan options based upon the facts they presented and my analysis
of

their individual situation. I decided when to go to my brach manager with a question

or decision.

4. My hour were my own, and I could set my schedule to fit my situation, and this was tre

of anyone at my location (Middleburg Heights, Ohio). My hours vared each day, and

each wcek. There was no minimum number of hour I had to work, and as of 2002, I
1

INDY 170659iv,i

MRR-20-2005(MON) 05: 02

Case 1:03-cv-02485-MSK-PAC

Document 380-8

Filed 03/29/2006
(FRX)330 239 2721

Page 3 of 4 P.002/003

believe there may have been a limitation of tlot workig more than 40 hour per week. It
was my policy to follow all Company rues an instrctons.

5. I worked on average no more than 40 hours per week, and it is possible I didnlt work
more than 40 hours in any given week, although I may have worked more than 40 hours a
couple of weeks.
6. I never made any request for overtme pay, and I never brought to any management

peron's atention that I had worked more than 40 hours per week.

7. If I worked any hours over 40 in a week, it could be as few as one (1) or two (2) total
hours for the entire ten of my employment, to 110 more than four (4) or five (5) tota

hours of overe for my employment. (I am speag about the total ter of my
employment and NOT per week.)
8. I did see loan offce who worked less than I did.. I saw a number who came in late in

the mornng and left by 4:30 p.m., like clockwork.
9. I got involved in ths lawsut when another former HHF employee contacted me and

encouraged me to parcipate. We were working at Jamestown Mortgage when I was told
of

the lawsuit.

10. I think there was some way to sign up through the law fi website. Aft I signed~ up, I

got a call from someone at the law firm of Nicholst Kaster, and Anderson. The peron I

spoke with encourged me to say I had worked as many as 60 hours per week. Even
though ths was not accurate, I said O.Kjust to get hi off

the phone.

11. I did not th much about the lawsuit except I thought I might get some money out of it,

and that I would not have to do mueh to get it.

2
INDY 1706S92v.l

MAR-20-2005(MON) 05: 02

Case 1:03-cv-02485-MSK-PAC

Document 380-8

Filed 03/29/2006
(FAX) 330 239 2721

Page 4 of 4 P.003/003

12. I finally decided that it was wrong to pursue the lawsuit, and so asked to be dropped
from the case. It is my understanding that has now occued.

I AFFIR UNER THE PENALTilS OF PERJRY THAT THE FOREGOING
FACTS AR TRUE AND ACCURATE.

Date: .3 ~.Ô ~ "

Ii

Ron GU '-

~IJQ

~...~"

3
fNDY 1706S92v,l