Thomas et al v. Waste Pro USA, Inc. et al

Filing 201

ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Three Most Recent Summary Judgment Motions 194 is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and/or to Stay Deadline for Plaintiff to File Response to Defendants� 39; Summary Judgment Motions 196 is DENIED. 3. Because Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendants' pending motions for summary judgment is today, January 18, 2019, the Court will extend that deadline by one week, to and including January 25, 2019. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 1/18/2019. (LJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ALFRED W. THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-2254-T-36CPT

WASTE PRO USA, INC. and WASTE PRO
OF FLORIDA, INC.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Three
Most Recent Summary Judgment Motions (Doc. 194) (“Motion to Strike”), Defendants’ response
in opposition to the motion (Doc. 198), Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time and/or to Stay
Deadline for Plaintiff to File Response to Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motions (Doc. 196)
(“Motion to Stay or Extend”), and Defendants’ response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 199).
In the Motion to Strike, Plaintiff argues that three summary judgment motions filed by Defendants
should be stricken because Defendants did not seek leave of the Court prior to filing multiple
motions. Doc. 194. In the Motion to Stay or Extend, Plaintiff contends that the Court should stay
or extend Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment pending
resolution of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike because doing so will promote efficiency in the event that
the Motion to Strike is granted. Doc. 196. The Court, having considered the motions and being
fully advised in the premises, will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Stay or Extend.
A.

BACKGROUND
This is a collective action filed pursuant to § 216(b) of the FLSA by Plaintiff Alfred W.

Thomas pertaining to the pay of certain “Helpers” employed by Defendants Waste Pro USA, Inc.,

and Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. (“Defendants”), which alleges willful violations of the FLSA. Doc.
111 ¶¶ 1, 64, 72. During the course of the litigation, Defendants have filed various summary
judgment motions against opt-in plaintiffs, generally arguing that these opt-in plaintiffs did not
work as Helpers during the relevant time period. See docs. 112-114, 118. The opt-in plaintiffs
who were the subject of these motions responded by advising the Court that they did not oppose
the motions, the opt-in plaintiff who was the subject of the fourth motion did not respond, and the
motions were granted. Docs. 112-114, 118, 135-137, 144, 167.
On January 4, 2019, Defendants filed an additional joint motion for summary judgment as
to an opt-in plaintiff (Doc. 183), Defendant Waste Pro USA, Inc. filed an independent motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 185), and Defendant Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. filed a separate
independent motion for summary judgment (Doc. 187).
The deadline to respond to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment is January 18th.
Prior to that deadline, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Strike, arguing that Defendants could not file
multiple motions for summary judgment without first obtaining leave to do so from the Court and
requesting that the Court strike the three motions filed on January 4. Doc. 194. Plaintiff also filed
the Motion to Stay or Extend, arguing that such an extension or stay would promote efficiency in
the event that the motion to strike is granted. Doc. 196.
Defendants respond that the Motion to Strike should be denied because multiple motions
were required to dismiss opt-in plaintiffs whose claims were clearly barred, Plaintiffs did not
oppose the prior filing of multiple motions (and, in fact, consented to several), and the Court does
not uniformly follow the “one summary judgment” rule. Doc. 198. Additionally, Defendants
oppose the Motion to Stay or Extend, arguing that Plaintiff’s request is for an indefinite amount of
time that would impact the dispositive motion deadline, which should not be granted except where

2

necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Doc. 199 at 1-2. Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not
show any manifest injustice, but argued instead that his motion was supported by good cause. Id.
at 2-3. Additionally, Defendants urge that good cause does not exist. Id. at 3.
II.

DISCUSSION
Both Local Rule 3.01(a) and the Case Management and Scheduling Order limit motions

for summary judgment to twenty-five pages. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(a); Doc. 87 at 6. The United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida has previously stricken duplicative motions for
summary judgment filed without obtaining leave of the Court because such motions addressed
common questions of law and fact; constituted wasteful, piecemeal pretrial activity; or sought to
circumvent the page limit. Benhassine v. Star Transp. Mgmt., Inc., No. 6:12-cv-1508-Orl-37GJK,
2013 WL 12164716, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2013); see also Mckenzie-Warton v. United
Airlines, No. 8:15-cv-114-17MAP, 2016 WL 5346948, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2016); Se. Metals
Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Fla Metal Prods., Inc., No. 3:09-cv-1250-J-25TEM, 2011 WL 833260, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2011) (stating that the local rules require motions to be presented in a single
document not exceeding twenty-five pages despite the fact that most summary judgment motions
address more than one issue, and explaining that allowing multiple motions would allow parties to
exceed the page limitation by simply filing separate motions for each issue).
Nonetheless, Plaintiff does not address the important distinction between this collective
action and those cases—namely, that the motions are directed to or by separate parties. Defendants
have not filed successive summary judgment motions to avoid the page limit or engage in
piecemeal pretrial activity. Instead, Defendants have filed separate motions against distinct
parties. Each of the jointly-filed summary judgment motions filed by Defendants address specific
opt-in plaintiffs. Docs. 112-114, 118, 183. Defendants then filed individual motions specifically

3

addressing the merits of the case against them. Docs. 185, 187. They, therefore, have not filed
successive motions against the same party, and were not required to obtain leave to file multiple
motions for summary judgment under these circumstances.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument that it is unfair to permit Plaintiff to file only one summary
judgment motion while allowing Defendants to file multiple, and requiring Plaintiff to respond to
multiple, is disingenuous. As an initial matter, it is not unfair that Defendants are separate entities,
brought into this action by Plaintiff, that are permitted to file separate motions for summary
judgment. Nor is it unfair that Defendants filed motions related to specific opt-in plaintiffs separate
from Plaintiff.
Moreover, the multiple motions filed by Defendants as to specific opt-in plaintiffs have not
created a burden for Plaintiff. With respect to the first three motions filed by Defendants, the optin plaintiffs (not Plaintiff) responded by filing one-page notices to advise the Court that they did
not oppose the motions. (Docs. 112-114, 135-137). Neither Plaintiff nor the relevant opt-in
plaintiff responded to the fourth motion for summary judgment. Doc. 118. Indeed, contrary to
Plaintiff’s assertions, these motions have not clogged the Court’s docket but have, in fact,
streamlined the case.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is denied. Additionally, because the Motion to
Stay or Extend is based on the Motion to Strike, it is denied as moot.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Three Most Recent Summary Judgment

Motions (Doc. 194) is DENIED.
2.

Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and/or to Stay Deadline for Plaintiff to

File Response to Defendants' Summary Judgment Motions (Doc. 196) is DENIED.

4

3.

Because Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to Defendants’ pending motions for

summary judgment is today, January 18, 2019, the Court will extend that deadline by one week,
to and including January 25, 2019.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 18, 2019.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record and Unrepresented Parties, if any

5