{"id":332,"date":"2026-01-28T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-28T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=332"},"modified":"2026-01-28T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-28T12:00:00","slug":"duardo-city-san-diego-flsa-collective-action-paramedic-bonus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=332","title":{"rendered":"Duardo v. City of San Diego \u2014 S.D. Cal. Conditionally Certifies FLSA Collective Action by Firefighter-Paramedics"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Duardo v. City of San Diego<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-28<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-02311<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Fair Labor Standards Act, collective action, conditional certification, regular rate of pay, paramedic bonus<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

George Duardo, Nick Hibbs, and Jason Deneau are firefighters employed by the City of San Diego. As part of their employment contract, the City pays each firefighter who maintains paramedic certification a $500 paramedic-certification bonus plus the cost of recertification. The plaintiffs allege that the City willfully violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to include this paramedic bonus in calculating their “regular rate of pay,” which is the dollar figure used to compute time-and-a-half overtime under federal law.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs sued under the FLSA’s collective-action procedure, 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 216(b), which lets one or more workers sue on behalf of themselves and other employees “similarly situated.” Unlike a Federal Rule 23 class action, an FLSA collective action requires each potential class member to affirmatively “opt in” by filing a written consent. Before that opt-in process can begin, the court must conditionally certify the case so that notice can be sent to potential collective members. The plaintiffs and the City filed a joint motion asking the court to do exactly that and to approve a proposed notice form.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court granted conditional certification and approved the notice plan with two modifications.<\/p>\n

Under the Ninth Circuit’s two-step framework set out in Campbell v. City of Los Angeles<\/em>, the first step is preliminary certification. The plaintiff’s burden at this stage is light: she need only allege that the workers were the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan and that there is some “reasonable basis” for class-wide injury. The judge concluded that this bar was easily cleared. All putative collective members allegedly received the paramedic bonus, and the City’s alleged failure to include it in the regular rate would affect every member’s overtime calculation in the same way.<\/p>\n

On the notice plan, the court generally approved the parties’ proposed procedure: the City would provide a list of eligible former and current firefighter-paramedics, plaintiffs’ counsel would distribute notice, and there would be a 60-day opt-in deadline. The court made two notable changes. First, where the parties had proposed sending the initial notice by either regular mail or email, the court required notice by both methods to all eligible workers for whom the City has personal email addresses on file. Second, where the parties had proposed sending a reminder 30 days before the opt-in deadline by email only, the court required that any reminder also be sent by both regular mail and email, and adjusted the timing.<\/p>\n

The court emphasized \u2014 citing the Supreme Court’s Hoffman-La Roche v. Sperling<\/em> decision \u2014 that judicial neutrality is critical at the notice stage. Notice procedures must not amount to solicitation of claims, and the proposed notice form here did not give the appearance of judicial endorsement of the merits.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n