Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cisneros v. Red Latina Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

May 19, 2017

MARIA DE LOURDES CISNEROS, Plaintiffs,
v.
RED LATINA CORP. and JOSEFINA ALBA, individually, Defendants. Exhibit No. Document Marked Admitted Objections

          CARLOS G. BECERRA Becerra Law Group, LLC Attorney for Plaintiffs

          Mario E. Utreras Utreras Law Offices, Inc. Attorneys for Defendants'

          CARLOS G. BECERRA, PERLA M. GONZALEZ Becerra Law Group, LLC

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge.

         In accordance with this Court's regular practice of meeting with counsel, in cases that have reached the stage of a jointly-submitted proposed Final Pretrial Order ("FPTO"), to discuss that FPTO and the planning for the forthcoming trial, such a meeting was held in this case on May 17, 2017, with Carlos Becerra appearing for plaintiffs and Mario Utreras appearing for defendants. [1] Because such meetings are ordinarily informal and seldom result in any substantive modifications to the jointly-proposed FPTO, they are sometimes held without a court reporter being present to enable a record to be made of the discussion. But in this instance it developed during the May 17 meeting that it could not fairly be said that the work product delivered to this Court was truly joint in all respects, so that the proposed FPTO is being placed of record contemporaneously with this memorandum order, with the two documents to be read together, This adds the case to this Court's trial call, with the date of trial to be set as discussed later in this order.

         Certain aspects of the proposed FPTO call for modification or correction. Here they are:

1. Tab A p. 4 ¶ (b), which reflects what the parties have labeled a "[s]hort agreed description of case to be read to jurors, " will not be used during the trial. Instead this Court, as always, will simply apprise prospective jurors of the general nature of the case via a short neutral oral statement, the purpose of which is to facilitate the selection of jurors who bring no disqualifying biases to the case and who are not perceived by counsel for either side to call for peremptory challenges.
2. As to Tab A p. 5 ¶ (c), which refers to the Exhibit List found at Tab B, defense counsel has orally withdrawn the objection that was listed opposite Ex. 1 but that applied to all designated exhibits that followed. Accordingly all of the listed exhibits (Exs. 1 through 96) are admitted without objection.
3. As to Tab A p. 5 ¶ (h) and p. 6 ¶ (h)(1), the parties' respective proposed jury instructions, those (which comprised Tabs E and F) have been deleted from the FPTO without objection by either party. Instead a new set of proposed jury instructions will be tendered shortly before trial, as provided for later in this memorandum order.
4. As to Tab A p. 6 ¶ (k), each party will file its motion or motions in limine, together with a supporting memorandum, on or before May 31, 2017. On or before June 14 counsel for each party will file a response (including a supporting memorandum) to the other side's motion or motions in limine, together with a letter to this Court, with a copy to opposing counsel, that identifies that party's unavailability for trial (taking into account the availability of both counsel and their respective witnesses) during the period from July 1 through September 30, 2017.
5. As to Tab A p. 6 ¶ (5), this Court contemplates the selection of an eight-person rather than ten-person jury for purposes of the trial.
6. As to Tab A p. 6 ¶ (6), this Court has determined, and the parties have agreed orally, that the issues of liability and damages will not be bifurcated for trial.

         When this Court has ruled on the respective motions in limine it will set the case for trial, and the new proposed jury instructions will be due 14 days before the scheduled trial date. For that purpose, to facilitate the jury instruction conference that will be held during the trial, the parties are ordered to develop a set of instructions on which they have reached joint agreement, with each side also ordered to submit separate proposed instructions on subjects as to which they have not reached agreement.

         PARTIES' PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER

         DOCUMENT TAB

         Parties' Proposed Pretrial Order............................................................................................. A

         Parties' Exhibit List................................................................................................................ B

         Parties' Agreed Proposed Voir Dire....................................................................................... C

         Defendants' Proposed Voir Dire............................................................................................. D

         Parties' Proposed Jury Instructions......................................................................................... E

         Defendants' Proposed Jury Instructions................................................................................. F

         Plaintiffs' Witness List............................................................................................................G

         Defendants' Witness List........................................................................................................ H

         Plaintiffs' Damages Calculation............................................................................................. I

         FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

         Plaintiffs, through their attorney Carlos Becerra and Perla Gonzalez of Becerra Law Group, LLC, and Defendants, through their attorneys, Mario E. Utreras of Utreras Law Offices, Inc., respectfully submit this Proposed Pretrial Order:

         (1) Jurisdiction. This is an action alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. ("FLSA"), violation of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §7434 ("IRC"), and violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. ("IMWL"). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367. Jurisdiction is not disputed.

         (2) Trial Attorneys. The attorneys trying this case are:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Attorneys for Defendants

Carlos G. Becerra

Mario E. Utreras

Perla M. Gonzalez

Becerra Law Group, LLC

Ltreras Law Offices, Inc.

HE. Adams St., Suite 1401

333 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1815

Chicago, IL 60603

Chicago, IL 60601

(312)957-9005

312-263-5580

(888)826-5848 (facsimile)

(888)263-6148 (facsimile)

cb ecerra@l aw-rb .com

mutreras@utreraslaw.com

pgonzalez@law-rb.com

         (3) Stipulations and Statements. The following stipulations and statements were submitted and are attached to and made part of this Order:

         (a) Uncontested Facts.

(1) Plaintiffs Maria De Lourdes Cisneros, Griselda Marin, Jackelin Pizano, and Marisol Pizano are former employees of Defendants.
(2) Plaintiffs Maria De Lourdes Cisneros, Griselda Marin, Jackelin Pizano, and Marisol Pizano worked as cashiers for Defendants.
(3) Plaintiffs Maria De Lourdes Cisneros, Griselda Marin, Jackelin Pizano, and Marisol Pizano were involved in interstate commerce while working for Defendants.
(4) Defendant Red Latina Corp. is an "enterprise" as defined by Section 3(r)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(1).
(5) Defendant Red Latina Corp. is an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 3(s)(1)(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(a).
(6) Defendant Red Latina Corp. was Plaintiffs1 employer as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(d).
(7) Defendant Red Latina Corp. was Plaintiffs' employer as defined by the Illinois Minimum ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.