Young v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Filing 289

ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION. Granting in part and denying in part 283 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion for Clarification and To Extend Notice Period, Permit Email Notice, and Allow for Reminder Notice. The notice per iod specified in the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification 264 is EXTENDED to 12/10/2012; Order 264 is AMENDED accordingly, but otherwise SHALL REMAIN in full force and effect. All consent-to-join forms SHALL BE RETURNED to plaintiffs counsel no later than 12/10/2012. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 10/4/2012.(kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Robert E. Blackburn, Judge
Civil Case No. 11-cv-01840-REB-MJW
TAYNA YOUNG, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the Plaintiff’s Expedited Motion for Clarification
and To Extend Notice Period, Permit Email Notice, and Allow for Reminder Notice
[#283]1 filed September 26, 2012. The defendant filed a response [#286], and the
plaintiff filed a reply [#287]. I grant the motion in part and deny it in part.
On August 24, 2012, I entered an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for
Conditional Certification [#264]. In that order, I conditionally certified a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In addition, I approved a form of
notice to potential plaintiffs and directed the defendant to provide the plaintiff with
contact information for employees and former employees of the defendant who
potentially may be plaintiffs in the collective action. I ordered the defendant to provide
that contact information by September 24, 2012. Finally, I ordered that any and all
1

“[#283]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

consent-to-join forms completed by persons wishing to join the collective action be
returned to plaintiff’s counsel no later than 90 days from the date of my order. That 90
day time period expires on November 22, 2012. The magistrate judge assigned to this
case then set a scheduling conference for November 27, 2012.
Obviously, the plaintiff could not mail notices to potential plaintiffs in the collective
action until the plaintiff received from the defendant contact information for the group of
potential plaintiffs. As a result of this timing, the time period for potential plaintiffs to
respond to the notice after it has been mailed will be reduced to approximately 45 days.
Given these circumstances, and the other circumstances present in this case, I
conclude that a brief extension of the time to return of consent-to-join forms to the
plaintiff’s counsel is merited. Therefore, I order that any and all consent-to-join forms
shall be returned to plaintiff’s counsel no later than December 10, 2012.
In her present motion, the plaintiff also seeks permission to e-mail notices to
potential plaintiffs in this collective action, in addition to mailing notices by first-class
mail, and to send a reminder notice to such potential plaintiffs during the notice period.
In appropriate circumstances, such measures may be proper in providing notice to
potential plaintiffs in a FLSA collective action. In this case, however, the plaintiff did not
raise the issues of e-mail notice and reminder notice in her motion for conditional
certification or in the reply in support of her motion for conditional certification. Nothing
in the plaintiff’s present motion demonstrates that these issues carry such importance in
the notice process that the issues should be addressed now, essentially as an afterthought in defining the notice process for this case. Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion is
denied to the extent the plaintiff requests permission to deliver notice via e-mail, in
addition to delivery via first-class mail, and to deliver a reminder notice during the notice
2

period.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Plaintiff’s Expedited Motion for Clarification and To Extend
Notice Period, Permit Email Notice, and Allow for Reminder Notice [#283] filed
September 26, 2012, is GRANTED in part;
2. That the notice period specified in the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for
Conditional Certification [#264] filed August 24, 2012, is EXTENDED to December
10, 2012;
3. That all consent-to-join forms SHALL BE RETURNED to plaintiff’s counsel no
later than December 10, 2012;
4. That the court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional
Certification [#264] filed August 24, 2012, is AMENDED accordingly, but otherwise
SHALL REMAIN in full force and effect;
5. That otherwise, the Plaintiff’s Expedited Motion for Clarification and To
Extend Notice Period, Permit Email Notice, and Allow for Reminder Notice [#283]
filed September 26, 2012, is DENIED.
Dated October 4, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3