Bowers v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc.
Filing
18
ORDER granting in part 10 Motion to Certify Class. See Order for details. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 5/23/2011. (prd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 11-60212-CIV-COHN/Seltzer
PAUL BOWERS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GULFSTREAM PARK RACING
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO PROCEED AS COLLECTIVE ACTION
ORDER DIRECTING EXPEDITED RESPONSE TO MOTION TO AMEND
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed as Collective
Action Against Defendant [DE 10], Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion [DE 14], and Plaintiff’s Reply in support of the Motion [DE 17]. The Court has
carefully considered the motion, response, and reply, as well as all associated exhibits,
and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.1
I. BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2011, Paul Bowers (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint asserting a
single claim for failure to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216, for employees who were employed as poker-dealers for
Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that he and
1
On May 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to add
an element of damages for off-the-clock hours worked [DE 16]. Plaintiff reported in the
Motion that Defendant opposed the motion for leave to amend. Motion for Leave to
Amend, ¶ 5. The Court will expedite Defendant’s response to that motion.
other similarly situated current and former employees were not paid their minimum
wages as tipped employees, because Defendant failed to properly pay Plaintiff by
allowing non-tipped employees to share in the tip proceeds, although Defendant
claimed a tip-credit for Plaintiff and other poker-dealers. Complaint, ¶¶ 7-13.
On April 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to permit court supervised notice
advising similarly situated individuals of their opt-in rights pursuant to the FLSA.
Defendant opposes the motion for several reasons. This motion became ripe on May
19, 2011.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks an order of this court allowing notification of potential class
members under Section 216(b) of the FLSA. It is settled in the Eleventh Circuit that a
district court has the authority under the FLSA to issue an order requiring notice to
similarly situated persons. See Grayson v. K Mart Corporation, 79 F.3d 1086, 1097
(11th Cir. 1996); Dybach v. State of Florida Dep't of Corrections, 942 F.2d 1562 (11th
Cir. 1991). Before determining whether to exercise such power, however, Dybach
instructs the district court that it “should satisfy itself that there are other employees of
the department-employer who desire to ‘opt-in’ and who are ‘similarly situated’ with
respect to their job requirements and with regard to their pay provisions.” Id. at 15671568. If the district court concludes that there are such other employees, the court then
has the discretion to establish the specific procedures to be followed with respect to
such possible opting-in. Id. at 1568. In Hipp v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d
1208, 1219 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. den., 534 U.S. 1127 (2002), the Eleventh Circuit
reaffirmed the Grayson-Dybach standard, but also stated its preference for a “two2
tiered” approach of conditional class certification and a later defense motion for
decertification after discovery. The Court stated that:
The two-tiered approach to certification of § 216(b) opt-in classes
described above appears to be an effective tool for district courts to use in
managing these often complex cases, and we suggest that district courts
in this circuit adopt it in future cases. Nothing in our circuit precedent,
however, requires district courts to utilize this approach. The decision to
create an opt-in class under § 216(b), like the decision on class
certification under Rule 23, remains soundly within the discretion of the
district court.
Hipp, 252 F.3d at1219.
In this case, Plaintiff seeks notification of the group of employees known as
“poker-dealers,” for whom Defendant claimed a tip-credit, and who were required to
disburse a portion of tips to non-tipped employees of the Defendant. Under the first
step of the Dybach test outlined above, though the record contains only two plaintiffs
who have formally opted-in to this lawsuit, the named Plaintiff Paul Bowers and opt-in
Plaintiff Charles Ashmore [DE 15], Plaintiff relies upon five additional affiants who state
that other poker-dealers “are willing to join this lawsuit.” Affidavit of Peter Crescenzo,
¶ 8 [DE 10-3], Affidavit of Sheldon Weinglass, ¶ 8 [DE 10-4], Affidavit of Robert
Grimsley, ¶ 8 [DE 10-5], Affidavit of Derek Reich, ¶ 8 [DE 10-6], and the Affidavit of a
supervisor of poker-dealers, Carlos Concepcion, ¶ 6 [DE 10-7]. Each avers that “I have
seen other dealers complaining about this tip pool who have stated they would be
interested in joining a lawsuit shall [sic] one be filed.” Id.
Defendant opposes notification for several reasons. First, Defendant argues that
Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden that other individuals wish to opt in to this lawsuit.
Defendant contends that because Plaintiff and other poker-dealers make $32 per hour
3
already, they would not be concerned with the potential recovery of an extra $1 per
hour if they opted in to this action.2 Second, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has
failed to identify a specific individual who desires to opt in to this action. Finally,
Defendant argues that because it has already offered to settle this action with Plaintiff
and the poker-dealer affiants for full FLSA damages and attorney’s fees, the action is
essentially moot.
Although the case law on this issue has never quantified the number of similarly
situated employees that must be identified before a motion for notification may be
granted, this Court concludes that Plaintiff has met his burden to show that other poker
dealers who participated in the tip pool “desire to opt-in” to this action. Dybach, 942
F.2d at 1567-68. Although only Plaintiff and Charles Ashmore have formally opted in at
this time, the four other poker-dealer affidavits provide additional support that other
individuals desire to opt in. Under the “fairly lenient” standard approved by Hipp,
Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed with notice. Hipp, 252 F.3d at 1218-19 (citing
Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1213-14 (5th Cir. 1995)).
As to the second step of the test in Dybach, Plaintiff has shown that there are
other poker-dealers who are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and
with regard to their pay provisions for purposes of allowing notification to potential class
members under the FLSA. Defendant has not challenged Plaintiff’s assertions that
company policy dictated that all poker-dealers were required to disburse a portion of
tips to supervisors, cashiers and management. Affidavit of Paul Bowers, ¶ 3 [DE 10-2];
2
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff and other poker-dealers were paid 90% of their
tips, leaving only 10% to go into the tip pool. In addition, the tips were paid out with
each biweekly paycheck.
4
Affidavit of Peter Crescenzo, ¶ 3 [DE 10-3]; Affidavit of Sheldon Weinglass, ¶ 3 [DE 104]; Affidavit of Robert Grimsley, ¶ 3 [DE 10-5]; Affidavit of Derek Reich, ¶ 3 [DE 10-6].
Defendant also argues that various portions of Plaintiff’s proposed Notice are
misleading and/or inappropriate. Defendant presented its own proposed Notice [DE 143]. In his reply, Plaintiff stated that in order to move the case forward, it would accept
Defendant’s Notice. Plaintiff’s Reply at p. 3 [DE 17].
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
Defendant shall file an expedited response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint [DE 16] by May 31, 2011;
2.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed as Collective Action Against Defendant [DE 10] is
hereby GRANTED, in part, in that Defendant’s Proposed Notice and Consent
forms shall be used in this case;
3.
The Court therefore adopts the Proposed Notice and Consent forms attached to
Defendant’s Memorandum at docket entry 14-3;
4.
Within 15 calendar days from today, Defendant shall disclose to Plaintiffs the
names and last known mailing addresses of all present and former “tipped”
poker dealers where a “tip-credit” was claimed, who were employed by
Defendant or any subsidiary or parent of Defendant since January 31, 2008;
5.
Plaintiffs shall insert a date-specific deadline in Section 6. of Defendant’s
proposed Notice that is 60 calendar days from the date of mailing of the Notices;
6.
Plaintiffs shall provide Defendant with a copy of each opt-in consent form
received by counsel, within 15 calendar days of counsel’s receipt thereof;
5
7.
The parties shall submit an amended joint scheduling report by August 31, 2011,
with proposed amended pretrial deadlines, including a brief description of the
number of opt-in consent forms received by that time.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 23rd day of May, 2011.
Copies furnished to:
copies to counsel listed on CM/ECF
6
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?