Day et al v. Celadon Trucking Services Inc
ORDER LIFTING STAY; pltfs' 99 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Issue of Damages is GRANTED; pltfs are directed to file the motion within 15 days from the entry date of this Order. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 7/25/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
STUART R. DAY, ET AL.
CELADON TRUCKING SERVICES,
NO: 4:09CV00031 SWW
This is a class action against Celadon Trucking Services, Inc. (“Celadon”) pursuant to the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2109.
On October 13, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of
liability. Thereafter, Celadon filed a motion for certification of an issue for interlocutory appeal
and a stay of proceedings pending appeal, which the Court granted. The Eighth Circuit denied
Celadon’s petition, and the case is now before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a
motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of damages (docket entry #99), Celadon’s
response (docket entry #100), and Plaintiffs’ reply (docket entry #101). After careful
consideration, and for reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.
Celadon states that it does not object to Plaintiffs’ request to file a dispositive motion,
provided that Celadon receives an opportunity, after the motion is filed, to depose individuals
who provide testimony in support of the motion. Celadon acknowledges that the discovery
deadline in this case expired on April 19, 2010, but it states that the relief requested is necessary
because Plaintiffs failed to disclose information related to their claim for damages as required
under Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs object to reopening discovery and state that in initial disclosures, they disclosed
that any or all of the plaintiffs joined in this case might be called as witnesses to testify regarding
rates of pay and that they intended to use records and documents to establish their rates of pay.
Plaintiffs report that Celadon never requested a deposition during the discovery period or within
the two years that followed the close of discovery.
Plaintiffs also recount that after the Court granted summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor
as to liability, the parties filed a joint motion for a continuance of the trial date and requested that
the Court permit the parties to submit a damages calculation to the Court. Plaintiffs reports that
the parties agreed about the methods and source documents that they would use to calculate
damages. However, Celadon then hired new counsel, abandoned the agreement, and attempted
an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs maintain that reopening discovery at this stage would be
unfair and further delay their receipt of wages due under the law.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted, without qualification.
Plaintiffs are instructed to file their motion within fifteen (15) days from the entry date of this
order. A party opposing summary judgment who believes that it has not had an adequate
opportunity to conduct discovery must seek relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(f), which requires the filing of an affidavit with the trial court showing “what specific facts
further discovery might unveil.” Stanback v. Best Diversified Products, Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 911
(C.A.8 (Ark.),1999)(citing Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1238 (8th Cir.1997)). Celadon
has not made the showing required under Rule 56(d), and the Court declines to postpone a
resolution of this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for
summary judgment on the issue of damages (docket entry #99) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are
instructed to file the motion within fifteen days from the entry date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay in this case is lifted.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2012.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?