In the United States Court of Federal Claims * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * JIM W. CHEUNG, * CHRISTOPHER D. KOS, * * CRAIG P. MILLER, * JACOB O. ONEWOKAE, * No. 18-48C * Filed: October 29, 2019 SEAN E. WRIGHT, Redacted Version for Issued for * Plaintiffs, * Publication: December 19, 20191 * v. * UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ORDER Plaintiffs Jim W. Cheung, Christopher D. Kos, Craig P. Miller, Jacob O. Onewokae, and Sean E. Wright filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (2012), against the United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The named plaintiffs are based in the Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) office, in the St. Paul Field Office, in Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. The named plaintiffs allege failures to pay plaintiffs while on night phone duty on a “standby” basis, rather than on an “on-call” basis, and for failure to pay plaintiffs regular overtime compensation, rather than administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO) compensation from May 1, 2017 to the present. Plaintiffs seek backpay and liquidated damages for their unpaid compensation, including interest and attorney’s fees. After the defendant filed an answer and the parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts, which included a joint appendix with deposition transcripts from the named plaintiffs and other government officials, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of Rules of the 1 This Order was issued under seal on October 29, 2019. The parties were asked to propose redactions prior to public release of the Order. This Order is issued with the redactions that the parties proposed in response to the court’s request. Words which are redacted are reflected with the notation: “[redacted].” United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) (2019). RCFC 56 is similar to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in language and effect. Both rules provide that “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” RCFC 56(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (2019); see also Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330, 344 (2010); Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 549 (1999); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); Biery v. United States, 753 F.3d 1279, 1286 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ladd v. United States, 713 F.3d 648, 651 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Minkin v. Gibbons, P.C., 680 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Noah Sys., ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals