Campbell v. Reliance Health Care Inc et al

Filing 138

ORDER denying 125 Motion for Leave to File. Knight's recent motion for voluntary non-suit, No. 135, is granted. All her claims against all the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice, as she requests. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/26/13. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

CARROLYN CAMPBELL; AMANDA HODGES;
CRYSTAL WALTERS; HEATHER CROW;
TABITHA RILEY; TERESA KNIGHT all individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated

v.

PLAINTIFFS

No. 4:12-cv-176-DPM

RELIANCE HEALTH CARE INC.;
NORTHWEST HEALTH AND REHAB INC.
dfb/a North Hills Life Care & Rehab;
BRANDON ADAMS individually and in his
capacity as owner, manager, officer andfor
incorporator of Reliance Health Care Inc.
and Northwest Health and Rehab Inc.; BRYAN
ADAMS individually and in his
capacity as owner, manager, officer andfor
incorporator of Reliance Health Care Inc.
and Northwest Health and Rehab Inc.;
SCNC INC. dfb/a Ridgecrest Health and
Rehabilitation

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1. The Court notes and appreciates the joint report on the parties'
dispute about discovery seeking contact information for potential members
of the collective action. NQ 129. The Court regrets its delay in tending to this
dispute. Defendants' objection to this discovery is sustained. Plaintiffs are
trying to steal a march on an issue reserved for after conditional certification,

if that step occurs. Under the discovery plan ordered by the Court, current
discovery should be directed to the plaintiffs' individual claims, the" similarly
situated" issue, and the "joint employer" issue. The contact information
about all employees can wait.
2. The motion to amend and assert class claims for promissory estoppel
and unjust enrichment is denied. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). The Court doubts
the existence of quasi-contract claims for straight time here, given that this
case is premised on the existence of an enforceable employment contract that
covers the wage issue. See, e.g., Campbell v. Asbury Automotive, Inc., 2011 Ark.
157,20-22,381 S.W.3d. 21,35-36 (discussing the general rule and exceptions);
QHC of Springdale, Inc. v. Archer, 2009 Ark. App. 692, at 13-14,373 S.W.3d 318,

326 (same). But to the extent these claims do exist, they are inherently
individualized. Detrimental reliance, misrepresentations, and equities will
vary employee by employee. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT
AND RESTITUTION§ 1 (2010). The variation across individuals undermines
both commonality and superiority, making a Rule 23(b)(3) class an unsuitable
vehicle. Johnson v. Ark. Convalescent Centers, Inc., 5:12-cv-143-DPM, NQ 55 at
5-7 (25 July 2013); Butcher v. Delta Memorial Hospital, 5:12-cv-241-SWW, NQ 47

-2-

(17 April 2013). The proposed class claims are therefore futile. Knapp v.
Hanson, 183 F.3d 786, 790 (8th Cir. 1999).

Even if the Court is mistaken about futility, the proposed amendment
would unduly delay the case. Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709,
715 (8th Cir. 2008). The proposed amendment came two months before the
Court's deadline for seeking pleading amendments. NQ 120 at 1. It is timely
in that sense. Plaintiffs, though, have already amended their complaint four
times. The straight-time issues are basic; they could, and should, have been
brought forward sooner in one of those amendments.
Discovery has been contentious. The Court had to stay all discovery
earlier this year for an in-person hearing about written discovery and a
deposition schedule-which the Court had to impose in the face of the
parties' disagreements. There have been several mid-deposition telephone
hearings. Defendants are correct: discovery about the quasi-contract issues
would involve more than just some clean-up interrogatories and requests for
production. Defendants want to reopen the depositions of the five remaining
plaintiffs to explore detrimental reliance, misrepresentations, and the like.
This is reasonable. But it cannot be accomplished by the end of this month,

-3-

which is the discovery deadline for first-round issues. Ng 120 at 1. Delaying
the case to do that discovery, and resolve any disputes that would come with
it, is not the best way to move this case fairly and efficiently toward resolution
for all parties.
Motion to amend, Ng 125, denied.
3. Knight's recent motion for voluntary non-suit, Ng 135, is granted. All
her claims against all the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice, as she
requests.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-4-