Jordan v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.
ORDER; 61 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Certification of Questions of Law to the Colorado Supreme Court and Request for Telephone Conference is DENIED, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 4/6/16.(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,
MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
This matter is before the court on “Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for
Certification of Questions of Law to the Colorado Supreme Court and Request for Telephone
Conference.” (Doc. No. 61, filed April 1, 2016.)
“A motion to reconsider must do two things: First, it must demonstrate some reason why
the court should reconsider its prior decision. Second, it must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Shields v. Shetler, 120
F.R.D. 123, 126 (D. Colo. 1988). The three main grounds that justify reconsideration are “(1) an
intervening change in controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need
to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d
1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion to reconsider must, “among other things, present matter
that is material and of such importance that it would likely alter the outcome. . . .” Aldrich
Enters., Inc. v. United States, 938 F.2d 1134, 1143 (10th Cir. 1991).
In its Motion for Certification, Defendant requested 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’s exemption applies to “third party employers and household
employers alike.” (Doc. No. 37 at 2.) Second, whether the exemption “permits covered
employees to perform some measure of ‘general household work’ as part of their duties.” (Id.)1
As noted in this court’s order denying Defendant’s request to certify, the defendant in
Kennett v. Bayada Home Health Care, Case No. 14-cv-2005-CMA-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-cv-2005-CMA-MJW, Doc.
No. 66.) On March 16, 2016, Judge Christine M. Arguello indicated the court would grant the
defendant’s motion. (Kennett, Case No. 14-cv-2005-CMA-MJW, Doc. No. 68.) The parties in
Kennett have conferred, as instructed by the court, and submitted a Joint Statement setting out
the specific language of the question to be certified. (Kennett, Case No. 14-cv-2005-CMAMJW, Doc. No. 70.)
This court previously explained that 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. The court agreed to stay the present matter until the Colorado
Supreme Court rules on the requested certification in Kennett.
This court previously 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.
Defendant now requests the court reconsider its decision denying Defendant’s request to
certify both questions. In support, Defendant states that both of its proposed questions are
undecided in Colorado state courts and could prove dispositive of the issues presented herein.
Defendant also argues that allowing concurrent certification would allow it and Plaintiff in this
matter to participate in the proceedings before the Colorado Supreme Court rather than being
relegated to “sitting on the sidelines.” (Doc. No. 61 at 4.)2 While the court appreciates
Defendant’s position, these arguments do not present new material of such importance that the
court would reconsider the basis of its initial decision. See Aldrich Enters, Inc., 938 F.2d at
1143. The fact remains that should the Colorado Supreme Court find the CWA’s companion
exemption does not apply to third party employers, Defendant’s proposed second question is
irrelevant, and the ruling would resolve the issues presented in this case in their entirety.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Certification of
Questions of Law to the Colorado Supreme Court and Request for Telephone
Conference” (Doc. No. 61) is DENIED.
Dated this 6th day of April, 2016.
Plaintiff has indicated she opposes Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. No. 61 at
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?