Opinion
4:11-CV-00578 BRW
04-24-2012
CORY NIXON, et al., EACH INDIVIDUALLY and on BEHALF of OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFFS v. COSTNER EXCAVATING, INC., d/b/a COSTNER GAS AND OIL FIELD SERVICES, and RHETT COSTNER, individually and as Owner/Manager of Costner Excavating DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Pending is Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36), Defendants' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer (Doc. No. 52), and Defendants' Motion to Defer Ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 57).
Defendants filed a response (Doc. No. 53) and Plaintiffs replied (Doc. No. 67).
Plaintiffs filed an objection (Doc. No. 62).
Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. No. 63).
1. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Plaintiffs argue that the Motion is brought "in bad faith, for purposes of delay, and will result in prejudice to Plaintiffs." I disagree. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer is GRANTED. Defendants should file the Amended Answer that is attached as Exhibit 1 to their Motion by 5:00 p.m., Thursday, April 26, 2012.
Doc. No. 62.
2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Plaintiffs contend that "no genuine triable issue of material fact exists as to Plaintiffs' non-exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act ('FLSA'), Defendants' liability under the FLSA, and the willfulness of Defendants' violations of the FLSA." Defendants disagree, and argue that Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendant Costner is "an enterprise engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce" for the purposes of the FLSA. They also contend that even if Defendant Costner was engaged in interstate commerce, Plaintiffs are exempt from the FLSA. Defendants also ask me to defer a ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment pending completion of discovery in this case.
Doc. No. 36.
Doc. No. 53.
Id.
Doc. No. 57.
On April 6, 2012, I conditionally certified this case as a collective action. I provided a deadline of 60 days -- June 5, 2012 -- for the putative plaintiffs to opt-in to the collective action.Based on this, I find that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is premature. In Dege v. Hutchinson Technology, Inc., the court found that a motion for summary judgment was premature and that "a determination on the merits would provide an unfair advantage to potential plaintiffs who may be waiting to determine whether to opt-in to the lawsuit."
Doc. No. 45.
Id.
See Dege v. Hutchinson Technology, Inc., No. 06-3754, 2007 WL 3275111, at *3 (D. Minn. Nov. 2, 2007).
Id. at *3; Cf Paxton v. Union Nat'l Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 558 (8th Cir. 1982) (discussing that it is "rarely appropriate" to certify a class after making a decision on the merits of the case); Owens v. Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1070 (D. Minn. 2008) (discussing the inherent unfairness of allowing a plaintiff to seek a ruling on the merits before seeking class certification thereby placing the potential class members in a "win-win situation" because " if the ruling goes against the named plaintiff, then others can opt out of the class and not be bound by that adverse decision, and if the ruling is favorable, then others can opt in to the class knowing that the defendant's liability has already been established.").
--------
The situation in this case is similar to that in Dege. At this stage of the litigation, discovery is not complete, the class status is still unresolved, and the deadline to opt-in has not expired. Certainly a decision in Plaintiffs' favor would encourage more putative plaintiffs to opt-in. Furthermore, Defendants may well seek to de-certify the collective action after discovery is complete. Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36) is DENIED without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Based on my findings of fact and conclusions of law above, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36) is DENIED without prejudice; Defendants' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer (Doc. No. 52) is GRANTED; and Defendants' Motion to Defer Ruling (Doc. No. 57) is MOOT. The Court will issue a new final scheduling order.
Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE