1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. MURPHY v. AJINOMOTO WINDSOR, INC.
 

MURPHY v. AJINOMOTO WINDSOR, INC.

No. 1:15-CV-120-JAR.

JAMES S. MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. AJINOMOTO WINDSOR, INC., et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri.

April 6, 2016.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James S. Murphy, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc., Defendant, represented by David C. Van Dyke , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Emily E. Bennett , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC & Tracy C. Litzinger , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS, P.C..

Windsor Quality Holdings, LP, Defendant, represented by David C. Van Dyke , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Emily E. Bennett , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC & Tracy C. Litzinger , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS, P.C..

Windsor Quality Foods, Defendant, represented by David C. Van Dyke , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Emily E. Bennett , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC & Tracy C. Litzinger , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS, P.C..

Greg Geib, President, Defendant, represented by David C. Van Dyke , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Emily E. Bennett , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC & Tracy C. Litzinger , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS, P.C..

Pam Cox, Plant Manager, Defendant, represented by David C. Van Dyke , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Emily E. Bennett , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC & Tracy C. Litzinger , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS, P.C..

Gary Cox, Maintenance Supervisor, Defendant, represented by David C. Van Dyke , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Emily E. Bennett , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC & Tracy C. Litzinger , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS, P.C..

Frank King, Production Manager, Defendant, represented by David C. Van Dyke , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Emily E. Bennett , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC & Tracy C. Litzinger , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS, P.C..

Karen Moore, Human Resource, Defendant, represented by David C. Van Dyke , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Emily E. Bennett , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC & Tracy C. Litzinger , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS, P.C..

Shawn Dean, Production Supervisor, Defendant, represented by David C. Van Dyke , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Emily E. Bennett , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC & Tracy C. Litzinger , HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS, P.C..

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Doc. No. 18) and on purported opt-in notices filed by Plaintiff (Doc. No. 31). Rule 23(a)(4) states that a prerequisite for certification of a class action lawsuit is a class representative who can "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Plaintiff is a pro se litigant. A litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see also 7A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1769.1 ("class representatives cannot appear pro se."). Although Plaintiff may proceed pro se on his individual claim at this time, he cannot proceed representing a class.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opt-in notices filed by Plaintiff (Doc. No. 31) are ordered stricken, as no class has been certified.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases