Harris v. JMC Steel Group, Inc.

Filing 67

Order re: 65 Brief filed by JMC Steel Group, Inc. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to file a response to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on or before 2/1/2017 as set out. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 1/18/2017. (srd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BOBBY HARRIS, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
JMC STEEL GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION 15-0607-WS-C

ORDER
On this date, defendant JMC Steel Group, Inc. filed its Unopposed Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (doc. 64) in this FLSA collective action.
Back on April 25, 2016, the undersigned entered an Order (doc. 42) conditionally
certifying this case as an FLSA collective action, with court-facilitated notice to be provided to
potential opt-in plaintiffs. The April 25 Order “conditionally certifie[d] a class consisting of all
present and former hourly paid employees of JMC Steel Group, Inc., for EnergeX Tube Division
in Thomasville, Alabama, who worked over forty hours in one or more work weeks from
January 1, 2014, to the present.” (Doc. 42, at 3.) It also prescribed certain requirements for
notice to be given to potential opt-in plaintiffs, and fixed deadlines for the opt-in period and the
concomitant filing of consent forms. By the parties’ reckoning, a total conditional class of 267
people are now joined in this action as original or opt-in plaintiffs. (Doc. 54, at 1-2.) Each of
these opt-in plaintiffs appears to have signed a “Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff” form
agreeing that named plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel were authorized to act as the opt-in
plaintiff’s representatives in all aspects of this case, including prosecution of the action and
potential settlement. (Doc. 41, Exh. 2.) Of note, the two-page preprinted form included a
provision stating, “It is further understood that no dismissal or settlement of the claim(s) will be
made without the consent of Client.” (Id. at 2.)
In its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, JMC Steel requests that this Court enter an
order dismissing the claims of some 31 enumerated opt-in plaintiffs. As grounds for this Motion,

JMC Steel presents evidence and argument that 25 of those opt-in plaintiffs lie beyond the
temporal scope of this matter because they separated from their employment at JMC Steel prior
to the January 1, 2014 cutoff date for this collective action (or, in the case of one opt-in plaintiff,
failed to work over 40 hours in one or more work weeks after January 1, 2014), as specified in
the April 25 Order. JMC Steel also shows that three opt-in plaintiffs have filed bankruptcy
petitions without disclosing their FLSA claims against JMC Steel on the appropriate bankruptcy
schedules, thereby barring their claims pursuant to the doctrine of judicial estoppel; that two optin plaintiffs were never employed by JMC Steel; and that one opt-in plaintiff did not work any
hours during the relevant time period. JMC Steel represents that plaintiffs’ counsel has
stipulated to all operative facts warranting dismissal of these 31 opt-in plaintiffs’ claims and that
plaintiffs’ counsel “has indicated Plaintiffs do not oppose the filing of this motion or the relief
requested herein.” (Doc. 65, at 6.)
Based on the information before the Court, defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment appears to be properly presented and factually and legally supported. The Court’s
only concern is with ensuring that the 31 opt-in plaintiffs have a reasonable, fair opportunity to
be heard in opposition, if they so choose. Although defendant’s filings set forth plaintiffs’
counsel’s non-opposition to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, they do not indicate what
steps plaintiffs’ counsel took to notify the 31 opt-in plaintiffs of this development and whether
the 31 affected individuals acquiesce to the proposed dismissal of their claims, or alternatively
whether any of them wish to be heard in opposition to defendants’ Motion. Accordingly, and in
an abundance of caution, it is ordered that plaintiffs’ counsel file a response to the Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on or before February 1, 2017, identifying the notice provided to the
31 subject opt-in plaintiffs and clarifying whether any of those individuals wish to be heard
before adjudication of such Motion.
DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2017.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-