Giuffre v. Marys Lake Lodge, LLC

Filing 100

ORDER. Defendant Marys Lake Lodge, LLC's 73 Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending the Resolution of its Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is denied to the extent that the Court declines to enter a stay of proceedings. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/20/2012, is vacated, and will be reset, if necessary, after resolution of the pending dispositive motions, or after Court-approved filing of an amended complaint, in the Court's discretion . Plaintiff's 74 Renewed Motion for Approval ofHoffman-La Roche Notice is denied without prejudice pending identification of the proper defendant in this lawsuit. Plaintiff's 98 tendered First Amended Class Action Complaint is rejected for lack of clarity as to the named Defendants. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/19/12.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00028-PAB-KLM
DARREN GIUFFRE, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARYS LAKE LODGE, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
Defendant,
RAMS HORN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, doing business as Marys Lake Lodge,
a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
Consol Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Marys Lake Lodge, LLC’s Motion
to Stay All Proceedings Pending the Resolution of its Motion for Summary Judgment
[Docket No. 73; Filed March 9, 2012] (“Motion to Stay”) and Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion
for Approval of Hoffman-La Roche Notice [Docket No. 74; Filed March 9, 2012].
As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s tendered “First Amended
Class Action Complaint Against Defendant Ram’s Horn Development Company, LLC”
[Docket No. 98; Filed April 17, 2012] (the “Tendered First Amended Class Action
Complaint”). The caption of the Tendered First Amended Class Action Complaint includes
both Defendants, Marys Lake Lodge and Ram’s Horn Development Company, LLC (“Ram’s
Horn”). Id. at 1. However, the title of the document identifies only Ram’s Horn, and the
1

introductory paragraph to the document states that the pleading is filed against Ram’s
Horn. Id. Further, the request for relief seeks judgment only against Ram’s Horn. Id. at
10. It is thus unclear as to whether Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended pleading that
is operative as to both named defendants in this consolidated action, or whether Plaintiff
intends to drop Defendant Marys Lake Lodge as a defendant (which, as previously
explained to Plaintiff, may be effected by Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, as opposed to Rule 15(a)).
Therefore, the Tendered First Amended Class Action Complaint is REJECTED.
Regarding the Motion to Stay, both Plaintiff and Defendant Marys Lake Lodge agree
that discovery in this matter is closed, thus the requested stay is a stay of proceedings, with
the exception of the adjudication of Marys Lake Lodge’s pending Motion for Summary
Judgment [#64]. This Court has long noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do
not explicitly provide for a stay of proceedings in a lawsuit. String Cheese Incident, LLC
v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955 (D. Colo. Mar. 30,
2006). However, the Court has construed Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to permit a stay of
discovery “for good cause, to protect a party from undue burden or expense,” especially
when dispositive motions are pending. Id. In either event, it is well-settled that stays are
generally disfavored in this district, although the decision to grant or deny them invokes the
discretion of the Court under the circumstances at issue. Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla
Mining Co., No. 07-cv-00267-EWN-MEH, 2007 WL 1655362, at *1 (D. Colo. June 6, 2007)
(unreported decision) (“A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored in this District.”
(citation omitted)).
Here, the Court declines to enter a stay of all proceedings. A stay of discovery
would be meaningless because discovery is closed. However, the Court finds utility in
2

vacating the Final Pretrial Conference set for June 20, 2012, and denying without prejudice
Plaintiff’s pending Renewed Motion for Approval of Hoffman-La Roche Notice, as further
explained below. Entry of a Final Pretrial Order, in light of Defendant Marys Lake Lodge’s
outstanding Motion for Summary Judgment as well as the Motion to Dismiss filed by the
recently-consolidated Defendant Ram’s Horn, would not serve the interests of judicial
efficiency and economy. Thus, the Final Pretrial Conference set for June 20, 2012, is
vacated, and will be reset at a later date if necessary, after resolution of the pending
dispositive motions.
Regarding Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Approval of Hoffman-La Roche Notice, the
Court finds that the District Judge’s reasoning for denying Plaintiff’s first motion seeking the
same relief remains applicable to the renewed motion. See Ord., [#63]. Plaintiff asks
permission to issue a Hoffman-La Roche Notice, which is the first step in a two-step
process by which the Court determines whether plaintiffs in a collective action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) are similarly situated for purposes of the
governing statute, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See Boldozier v. Amer. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 375
F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1092 (D. Colo. 2005). In the order denying Plaintiff’s first motion, the
District Judge denied the motion without prejudice “to refiling upon resolution of the issue
regarding the identification of the proper defendant in this matter.” [#63] at 1.
The identification of the proper defendant in this matter appears no closer to
resolution at present. The convoluted history of this matter, which the Court will not repeat
here, see [#69] at 2-4, has not yet resulted in the identification of the proper defendant.
Both Marys Lake Lodge and Ram’s Horn are identified as named defendants in the current

3

operative pleadings; however, Plaintiff requested substitution of Ram’s Horn for Marys Lake
Lodge in a pending motion filed February 13, 2012 [#60], which this Court recommended
be denied [#69]. Ram’s Horn was then added to this action as a consolidated defendant,
and it responded to Plaintiff’s Complaint with the presently pending Motion to Dismiss
challenging its inclusion in this lawsuit on the basis that it was not Plaintiff’s employer at the
time relevant to the allegations [#97].1 Plaintiff then filed the Tendered First Amended
Class Action Complaint, which as described above, lacks clarity as to whether Plaintiff is
dropping Marys Lake Lodge as a named defendant. Until the question of the properly
identified defendant is resolved, there is no point in allowing Plaintiff to issue a Hoffman-La
Roche Notice, as the potential addition of putative class members in the absence of a
clearly identified defendant would serve only to muddy the already murky waters of this
case.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [#73] is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. The Motion is denied to the extent that the Court declines to enter a
stay of proceedings. The Motion is granted as follows:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference set for June 20, 2012,
is VACATED, and will be reset, if necessary, after resolution of the pending dispositive
motions, or after Court-approved filing of an amended complaint, in the Court’s discretion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Approval of
Hoffman-La Roche Notice [#74] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pending identification
1

The Complaint naming Ram’s Horn as a defendant is located at Docket No. 3 in
Consolidated Case No. 12-cv-00377-PAB.

4

of the proper defendant in this lawsuit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s tendered First Amended Class Action
Complaint [#98] is REJECTED for lack of clarity as to the named Defendants. Again, the
Court reminds Plaintiff that entry of an amended complaint is not required for the dismissal
of a defendant. The appropriate procedure is simply to move for dismissal of the defendant
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. See Rec., [#69] at 6 n.4 (citation omitted).
Dated: April 19, 2012

5