to perform” or time spent engaged in “activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities.” 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(1). Lastly, Dynasty contends that it compensates its employees through the payment of a per diem amount and that these payments may account for the overtime compensation allegedly owed to Plaintiffs. Def.’s Resp. 7. Although Plaintiffs have put forth evidence of uncompensated overtime, Dynasty has come forward with evidence, in the form of Ricardo Armendáriz’s deposition testimony, that tends to negate the inference drawn from Plaintiffs’ evidence. See generally Ricardo Armendáriz Dep. Although Plaintiffs may argue that Ricardo Armendáriz, as owner and Vice President of Dynasty, is an unreliable source 902, 937 n. 14 (S.D.Tex.2009) (<HOLDING>). Thus, alleged evidentiary deficiencies which
holding that rule 23b2 calls for injunction as to all class members or to none of them and does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages holding that the flsa does not require a showing of causation and that although an employer is permitted to contest each individuals damages in a class action bifurcation allows it to do so holding under flsa holding that securities fraud plaintiffs do not have to prove loss causation to obtain class certification holding that punitive damages are not allowed under the flsa