Adame v. City of Santa Clara
- Susan
- 5:26-cv-03740
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Adame v. City of Santa Clara, Judge van Keulen granted the parties' joint request to extend the service deadline to September 28, 2026, and push back all case management dates by roughly one month.
The named plaintiffs — over a hundred current or former City of Santa Clara employees alleging unpaid overtime — and the City of Santa Clara as defendant. Others similarly situated who may later join the collective action are also affected by the scheduling delays.
What happened
In Adame v. City of Santa Clara (Case No. 5:26-cv-03740-SVK), over a hundred named plaintiffs sued the City of Santa Clara alleging the city violated the overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage law. The case was filed April 29, 2026, but the defendant has not yet been formally served because both sides have been engaged in settlement talks since before the lawsuit was filed, including the exchange of payroll records, legal arguments, and a formal settlement offer in progress.
Both sides agreed — and asked the court to approve — a roughly one-month extension of the deadline to formally deliver legal papers to the city (service of process), moving it from August 27, 2026 to September 28, 2026. They also asked to push back a series of early case management deadlines, including deadlines to file case management paperwork and to hold the Initial Case Management Conference, which would move from November 10, 2026 to December 8, 2026. The city's attorneys appeared only for the limited purpose of joining this request and explicitly reserved all legal defenses.
On August 26, 2026, Judge Susan van Keulen granted the stipulation, extending the service deadline to September 28, 2026, and resetting all case management dates as proposed by the parties. The order was based on the parties' agreement and a finding of good cause, reflecting that ongoing settlement discussions justified the delay without prejudicing either side.
The detailed version
- Adame v. City of Santa Clara · No. 5:26-cv-03740
- Susan
- Aug. 26, 2026
Background
This putative collective action — a lawsuit brought on behalf of the named plaintiffs and others similarly situated — was filed on April 29, 2026. Over a hundred named plaintiffs allege that defendant City of Santa Clara violated the overtime payment provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 207, by failing to properly calculate and pay overtime.
Before filing suit, plaintiffs' counsel notified the City of the FLSA claims by letter on October 3, 2025, and requested a tolling agreement — an agreement that pauses the running of the statute of limitations — to allow the parties to explore settlement. On November 6, 2025, the parties entered a tolling agreement effective October 3, 2025 through December 31, 2026. Plaintiffs submitted a detailed settlement offer on December 3, 2025, and followed up with a letter requesting good-faith negotiations on February 6, 2026. The city retained outside counsel, and plaintiffs then filed the complaint while continuing to offer to engage in settlement discussions.
Settlement Discussions and Prior Extensions
The parties represent that they have engaged in substantive and productive settlement discussions, including the city's disclosure of detailed payroll and time records for a representative work period, exchange of legal authorities regarding overtime calculation methodology, and the city's engagement of an accounting firm to analyze plaintiffs' payroll records and calculate purported damages. The city also indicated its intent to present a formal settlement offer.
The original deadline to serve the defendant was July 28, 2026. The parties previously stipulated to a 30-day extension (ECF No. 15), which the court approved (ECF No. 16), moving the deadline to August 27, 2026. The court also previously continued the Initial Case Management Conference from August 11, 2026 to November 10, 2026.
The Stipulation
On August 25, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation seeking a further 30-day extension of the service deadline, to September 28, 2026, and corresponding extensions of all early case management deadlines. The city's counsel appeared specially and for the limited purpose of joining this request, explicitly reserving all rights and defenses, including statute of limitations and validity of the tolling agreement arguments, and stating that the appearance does not constitute a general appearance.
The parties argued that good cause existed for the extension because ongoing good-faith settlement discussions made formal service potentially unnecessary, and that courts have recognized such discussions as good cause to extend service deadlines.
The proposed new deadlines are:
- ADR Certification filing deadline: November 13, 2026 (from October 13, 2026) - Meet and confer on initial disclosures, settlement, ADR, and discovery plan: November 13, 2026 (from October 13, 2026) - Initial disclosures deadline: November 27, 2026 (from October 27, 2026) - Joint Case Management Statement deadline: December 3, 2026 (from November 3, 2026) - Email list of counsel/parties for Initial Case Management Conference: December 4, 2026 at 3:00 PM (from November 6, 2026 at 3:00 PM) - Initial Case Management Conference (by Zoom): December 8, 2026 at 9:30 AM (from November 10, 2026 at 9:30 AM)
Ruling
Judge Susan van Keulen granted the stipulation on August 26, 2026, finding good cause shown. The order: (1) extended the deadline for plaintiffs to effect service of process to September 28, 2026; and (2) reset all case management deadlines as proposed in the stipulation.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.