Jordan v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.

Filing 60

ORDER; 37 Defendants Motion for Certification of Questions of Law to theColorado Supreme Court is DENIED as moot. 48 Defendants Motion to Stay Pending the Courts Ruling on Maxims Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Certification of Questions o f Law to the Colorado Supreme Court and Request for Expedited Ruling is GRANTED. This case is stayed pending a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court on the questions presented through certification in Kennett v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-2005-CMA-MJW.The parties shall file a Joint Status Report in this case within seven (7) days of the same, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/17/16.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 15–cv–01372–KMT
THERESA JORDAN, individually and on behalf of the Proposed Colorado Rule 23 Class,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on “Defendant’s Motion for Certification of Questions of
Law to the Colorado Supreme Court” (Doc. No. 37), to which Plaintiff has responded (Doc. No.
44) and Defendant has replied. (Doc. No. 45). Defendant has also filed “Defendant’s Motion to
Stay Pending the Court’s Ruling on Maxim’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Certification
of Questions of Law to the Colorado Supreme Court and Request for Expedited Ruling” (Doc.
No. 48), to which Plaintiff has responded (Doc. No. 54) and Defendant has replied. (Doc. No.
55.)
In its Motion for Certification, Defendant requests, pursuant to Colo. App. R. 21.1, the
court certify to the Colorado Supreme Court two questions related to the companion exemption
under the Colorado Wage Act (“CWA”). First, whether the CWA applies to “third party
employers and household employers alike.” (Doc. No. 37 at 2.) Second, whether the companion

exemption “permits covered employees to perform some measure of ‘general household work’ as
part of their duties.” (Id.)
Recently, the defendant in Kennett v. Bayada Home Health Care, Case No. 14-cv-2005CMA-MJW requested the court certify to the Colorado Supreme Court the question of whether
the CWA’s companion exemption applies to third-party employers. (Kennett, Case No. 14-cv2005-CMA-MJW, Doc. No. 66.) On March 16, 2016, Judge Christine M. Arguello indicated
that the court would grant the defendant’s motion “because it believes that allowing the Colorado
Supreme Court to decide this state law question is ultimately the most efficient and economical
way to proceed, particularly in light of the determinative impact that the answer would have in
this case and other cases.” (Kennett, Case No. 14-cv-2005-CMA-MJW, Doc. No. 68.) The court
provided the parties until March 30, 2016 to confer and agree on the specific language of the
question to be certified. (Id.)
As the parties herein are aware, this court has ruled that the companion exemption does
not apply to third party employers. (See generally Doc. No. 59.) See also Kennett v. Bayada
Home Health Care, Inc., __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2015 WL 5608132 (D. Colo. 2015). Therefore, the
court has not had cause to consider Defendant’s second proposed question. Although the
defendant in Kennett only requested certification of the question regarding application of the
companion exemption to third party employers, the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in that
regard could resolve the issues presented in this case in their entirety. Therefore, the court agrees
to stay the present matter until the Colorado Supreme Court rules on the requested certification
in Kennett. The court notes that the plaintiffs in Kennett share counsel with Plaintiff in this case.

2

Thus, requiring notification following a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court should be
efficient.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion for Certification of Questions of Law to the
Colorado Supreme Court” (Doc. No. 37) is DENIED as moot. It is further
ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion to Stay Pending the Court’s Ruling on Maxim’s
Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Certification of Questions of Law to the Colorado Supreme
Court and Request for Expedited Ruling” (Doc. No. 48) is GRANTED. This case is stayed
pending a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court on the questions presented through
certification in Kennett v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-2005-CMA-MJW.
The parties shall file a Joint Status Report in this case within seven (7) days of the same.
Dated this 17th day of March, 2016.

3