Brown v. Bi-Lo Holdings, LLC

Filing 68

ORDER denying Defendants' 57 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Plaintiff's 62 Amended Motion for Reconsideration ; denying as moot Plaintiff's 60 Motion for Reconsideration; and directing that Plaintiff's remaining claim for reinstatement shall proceed to trial. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 6/17/2016. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION
*

ISAIAH BROWN,

*

Plaintiff,

*
*

v.

WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., and
BI-LO HOLDINGS, LLC,

*
*

Defendants.

2:14-cv-52

*
*

ORDER

This

appeal.

case

recently returned to

(Eleventh Circuit Mandate,

motions have been filed.

summary

seeks

judgment,

summary

testimony
Plaintiff's

that

was

judgment

in

he

not

does
for

Court

from a premature

50.)

Since then two

Doc.

First is Defendants'

which

motion

the

second motion for

filed with

the

light

Plaintiff's

seek

of

Court's

reinstatement.

reconsideration

of

the

leave

and

deposition

Second

Court's

May

is
20,

2015 Order dismissing the Plaintiff's claims for monetary relief
under the doctrine

of judicial estoppel.

Reconsideration, Doc.
are

DENIED.

62.)

(Amended Motion

for

For the reasons below, both motions

I.

BACKGROUND

This case concerns allegations that Defendants violated the

Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act in

connection

with

Plaintiff's

employment.

The

Court's

2015 Order sets out the complete factual background.
That

Order

granted

monetary relief,
Plaintiff

seeks

summary

judgment

on

Plaintiff's

including front and back pay.
reconsideration

of

that

Order

May

20,

(Doc. 38.)
claims

(Id.
while

for

at 33. )x

Defendants

seek summary judgment on the remaining claim for reinstatement.

1 On

this

point,

the

Court's

Order

cited

Burnes

v.

Pemco

Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002) and Barger v.
City of Cartersville, Ga., 348 F.3d 1289, 1297 (11th Cir. 2003). (Doc.

38

at

33.)

Barger

discussed

what

relief

is

prohibited

by

judicial

estoppel:

that

In Burnes, the [Eleventh Circuit] decided
while
judicial
estoppel
barred
the

plaintiff-appellant
from pursuing
claims
for
monetary damages, the doctrine did not prohibit
him from pursuing claims which add no monetary
value
to
the
bankruptcy
estate.
Thus,
the
[Eleventh
Circuit]
allowed
the
plaintiffappellant to proceed on his claims for injunctive
relief.

her

Bargerfs claim for injunctive relief (i.e.
request for reinstatement) would have added

nothing of value to the bankruptcy estate even if
she properly disclosed it. Therefore, like the
plaintiff-appellant in Burnes, judicial estoppel
does not prohibit Barger from pursuing any claims
for injunctive relief that she may have.

Barger v. City of Cartersville, Ga., 348 F.3d 1289, 1297 (11th
Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
Thus, Barger clarifies that judicial

estoppel prohibits all claims for monetary compensation including
front pay. Accordingly, only Plaintiff's reinstatement claim remains.

II.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

A. Legal Standard

"In considering a motion for reconsideration,

balance the

need for

finality and judicial economy against the

need to render just decisions."
Ass'n
Ga.

Local

Jan.

1423,

30,

reconsider

v.

156875,

Rule

District

at *1

(S.D.

at

Stratton

Ga.

at

Jan.

be

courts

for

used
in

by

this

Circuit

reconsideration

intervening
evidence;

Fla.

2d 1313,

the

Servs.,

Mar.

1320

14,

(N.D.

3:10-cv-1195,

2013).

in

injustice."

Powered Fin.
(S.D.

(3)

in

exercising

"have

taken

should only be

change

or

manifest

No.

courts

controlling
need

to

Insured
LLC,

No.

2008);
Ga.

2013

the

(S.D.

Ga.

No.

*1

(S.D.

discretion

time

Capital

at

before

final

City Bank,

Sept.

24,

6:04-cv-016,

to

No.

2012);
2006

WL

2006).

Although the text of Rule 54 (b)

to

any

Corp.,

19,

393096,

have

v.

*4

Int'l Longshoremen's

WL

courts

Watkins

4372289,

&

2013

orders

54(b).

2012 WL
Briggs

Collins v.

2:09-cv-093,

interlocutory

3:10-cv-087,
Lambert

No

2013) .

judgment under

a court must

does not specify a standard

authority
the

position

granted

law;

correct

Deposits

07-22735,

under

if

the

Rule,

a

motion

that

there

(2)

newly

clear

error

is

Conduit,

or

LLC

Jones,

prevent

v.

Index

at

696 F.

*l-2
Supp.

2010); Merrett v. Liberty Mut.

Ins.

WL

Sept.

5289095,

at

*1

(M.D.

Fla.

an

discovered

2008 WL 5691349,

accord Bryant v.

(1)

Co.,

19,

Because reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be

employed sparingly,
strongly

prior

the movant must set forth facts or law of a

convincing

nature

decision.

Voter

Software,

Inc. , No.

Fla.

Aug.

31,

used

to

offer

new

legal

induce

Verified,

6:09-cv-1969,

2011).

present

to

the

Court

Inc.

2011

v.

WL

to

reverse

Election

3862450,

at

its

Sys.
*2

&

(M.D.

A motion for reconsideration should not be

arguments

theories

already

or

heard

evidence

and

that

presented before the original decision.

dismissed,

or

to

a party could have

S.E.C.

v.

Mannion,

l:10-cv-3374, 2013 WL 5999657, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Nov.

No.

12, 2013).

B. Analysis

In her motion,

Plaintiff argues that the following factual

developments warrant reconsideration of the Court's May 20, 2015
Order.

First,

the

Plaintiff's

claims

she

abandoned

has

A.)

not

Whether

immaterial.
did

not

2015.

the

Chapter

are

property

Bankruptcy

to

(Order,

reopen

Doc.

38

at

the

suit

bankruptcy

7.)

"has

averred

bankruptcy

claims."

Trustee

filed this
his

Trustee

of

Plaintiff's

Plaintiff

move

13

(Doc.

abandoned

on

April

case

that

estate,
62

at

the

claims

14,

until

1,

2014,

February

In these circumstances,

and
Ex.

is

but
2,

judicial

estoppel applies whether or not the Bankruptcy Court reopens the

bankruptcy
legal

proceedings

claims

as

and

property of

v. Pemco Aeroplex,

allows

the

Trustee

to

pursue

the bankruptcy estate.

Inc., 291 F.3d 1282,

1288

(11th Cir.

See

the

Burnes

2002).

Second,

Plaintiff notes that the Bankruptcy Court approved

Plaintiff's

counsel

1, Ex. B.)

But the same was true in Slater v. U.S.

F.3d

to

pursue

Plaintiff's

, 2016 WL 723012,

at

*2

claims.

(11th Cir.

(Doc.

62 at

Steel Corp.,

Feb.

24,

2016),

and it had no impact on the Eleventh Circuit's opinion affirming
the district court's dismissal on judicial-estoppel grounds.

Finally,

Plaintiff indicates that he has settled a separate

vehicular tort claim and that a motion to approve the settlement
is pending before the bankruptcy court.

Plaintiff leaves unsaid

why that settlement affects the Court's prior Order.
concludes

that

The

it

does

remainder

opposition to

of

The Court

not.

Plaintiff's

summary judgment.

argument

repeats

In its May 20,

his

prior

2015 Order,

the

Court cited the binding precedents that controlled its decision.
See,

595

e.g.,

F.3d

Burnes,

1269

291 F.3d 1292;

(11th Cir.

Robinson v.

2012).

The

Eleventh Circuit

reaffirmed those same precedents in Slater.
*11.

In

light

of

Slater,

reconsider its Order.

application

of

the

In sum,

doctrine

taken under oath in

in the

make a mockery of justice."

(Order,

in

Doc.

the

Court's

38 at 12-25).

Inc.,

recently

2016 WL 723012,

reason

at

for the Court to

"[t]he factors that trigger the

are

(1)

an

the Bankruptcy Court,

inconsistent position

explained

there is no

Tyson Foods,

District

Slater,
Order,

inconsistent
and

Court

(2)

with

advancing an
the

2016 WL 723012,

those

two

position

intent

at *11.

factors

are

to

As
met.

Plaintiff's

concurring

reply

opinion

brief

in

frequently

Slater.

In

his

cites

Judge

opinion,

Tjoflat's

Judge

Tjoflat

presents many well-reasoned criticisms of the Eleventh Circuit's

current

application

Slater,

2016

Thompson

v.

WL

of

the

723012

doctrine

(Tjoflat,

Quarles,

judicial

(describing
Nevertheless,

392

estoppel

as

Judge

B.R.

J.,

517,

as

Tjoflat's

of

(Tjoflat,

J., concurring)

Burns,

291

F.3d

1282

(11th

Cir.

F.3d

Those

1289

cases

and

and

Barger

2003)

their

and

progeny

estoppel.

concurring);
525-26

"a

(S.D.

doctrine

opinion

precedents are binding in this circuit.

at *12

judicial

see
Ga.

run

2008)

amok").

recognized,

Slater,

also

those

2016 WL 723012,

(noting the binding holdings in
v.

City

calling

control

of

for

this

Cartersville,

en

banc

case;

348

review).

therefore,

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

III.

DEFENDANTS'

SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court's May 20, 2015 Order granted summary judgment on

Plaintiff's claims for monetary relief,

pay.

Because

maintaining

remaining

judicial

claims

claim

estoppel

including front and back

prohibits

for

monetary

relief,

an

equitable

claim

is

Plaintiff

from

Plaintiff's

sole

for

reinstatement.

Defendants now move for summary judgment on that claim.
Mot.

Sum.

J.,

Doc.

57.)

(Def.'s

A. Legal Standard

Summary

genuine

dispute

entitled

56(a).
the

judgment

to

judgment

under

Liberty Lobby,

the

party,

U.S.

in

to

appropriate

any

as

material

a

matter

only

fact

of

if

"there

and

law."

Fed.

no

movant

the

is

is

R.

Civ.

P.

Facts are "material" if they could affect the outcome of

suit

view

as

is

the
Inc.,

facts

in

Matsushita

574,

[its]

1428,

587

477

242,

light

the

(1986),

substantive

U.S.

most

Elec.

favor."

1437

governing

Indus.

248

law.

(1986).

favorable

Co.

v.

v.

The Court must

to

Zenith

Anderson

the

Radio

non-moving
Corp.,

475

and must draw "all justifiable inferences

U.S.

(11th Cir.

v.

Four Parcels of Real

1991)

(en banc)

Prop.,

941

F.2d

(internal punctuation and

citations omitted).

The

Court

moving

the

file.

party

basis

for

Celotex Corp.

has

the
v.

the

initial

motion

Catrett,

by

burden

reference

477 U.S.

317,

of

to

showing

the

materials

323

(1986).

on
How

to carry this burden depends on who bears the burden of proof at
trial.

Cir.

Fitzpatrick v.

1993) .

trial,

ways:
or

the

When

movant

the

may

by negating an

by

showing

City of Atlanta,

that

non-movant

carry

the

has

v.

S.H.

F.2d 604,

Kress

& Co.,

F.3d 1112,

the

initial

burden

burden

in

1115

of

(11th

proof

one

of

at

two

essential element of the non-movant's case
there

is

no

necessary to the non-movant's case.
Inc. , 929

2

evidence

prove

a

fact

See Clark v. Coats & Clark,

606-08

(11th Cir.

398

144

U.S.

to

1991)

(1970)

(explaining Adickes

and Celotex,

477

U.S.

317).

Before the Court can evaluate the non-movant's response

in opposition,

its

it must first consider whether the movant has met

initial burden of

showing that there are no

genuine issues

of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.

1997)

(per

movant
929

Jones v.

curiam) .

cannot meet

F.2d at

non-movant

may

there

254

(11th Cir.

conclusory statement that the non-

the burden at trial

if—the movant

only

is

avoid

indeed

summary judgment."

proof at

A mere

120 F.3d 248,

is

insufficient.

Clark,

608.

If—and only

that

City of Columbus,

trial,

a

Id.

carries

summary

material

its

initial

judgment

issue

of

by

burden,

the

"demonstrat[ing]

fact

that

precludes

When the non-movant bears the burden of

the non-movant must

method by which the movant

tailor

carried its

its

response to

initial burden.

the

If the

movant presents evidence affirmatively negating a material fact,
the

non-movant

withstand

fact

a

"must

directed

sought

to be

respond
verdict

negated."

with

motion

evidence
at

trial

Fitzpatrick,

2

sufficient
on

the

F.3d at

shows an absence of evidence on a material

non-movant

must

either

show

that

the

record

with

additional

verdict

motion

deficiency."
burden by

evidence

at

Id.

relying

sufficient

trial

at
on

based

1117.
the

to

on

The

pleadings

the

or

by

If
the

evidence

"come forward

withstand

alleged

non-movant

fact,

contains

that was "overlooked or ignored" by the movant or

material

1116.

the movant

to

cannot

repeating

a

directed

evidentiary

carry

its

conclusory

allegations contained in the complaint.

See Morris v. Ross,

F.2d

Rather,

1032,

1033-34

(11th

Cir.

1981).

the

663

non-movant

must respond with affidavits or as otherwise provided by Federal
Rule

of Civil

In

Procedure

this

action,

of Defendants'
the

summary

772

58.)

F.2d

the Clerk of

Court

gave

Plaintiffs

notice

motion for summary judgment and informed them of

judgment

other materials
(Doc.

56.

the

in opposition,

The
822,

rules,

notice

825

right

file

affidavits

and the consequences of

requirements

(11th

to

Cir.

of Griffith v.

1985)

(per

curiam)

or

default.

Wainwright,

are

therefore

satisfied, and the motion is ripe for review.

B. Analysis

Defendants

reinstatement
Mot.

Sum.

counsel
lawsuit.

After

contend

during

J.,

asked
(Id.

Doc.

Plaintiff's

Plaintiff

a deposition on
57.)

Plaintiff
at

that

2.)

During

if

he

counsel's

phrased the initial question,

August

the

sought

Plaintiff

waived

"No,

Plaintiff replied "Right."

(Def.'s

via

the
(Id.)

counsel

re

"if the judge were

to order you to be reinstated with Winn-Dixie.

3.)

sir."

Defendants'

to

Defendants'

reinstatement

asking instead,

want to accept that employment.

right

2015.

deposition,

answered

objection,

18,

his

. .you would not

Is that your answer?"

(Id. at

(Id.)

The Eleventh Circuit has held that "once an employer makes

a ^good faith'

offer of reinstatement,

^claimants forfeit their

right to reinstatement
offer

is

1277,

1279

unless their refusal

reasonable.'"

Service,

(11th

Inc.,

"encourages

.

job

into

v.

1992.)

F.2d 1290,

.

unconditional
defendants

Cir.

867

.

Lewis

1296

to

an

employee

Stanfield

promptly

v. EEOC,

to

458 U.S.

maintain

his

to

. .

its

219

v.

This rule

curative,

thereby
. far

F.2d

Answering

make

bringing

more

quickly

often ponderous pace.".

(1982).

right

953

1989).

claimants,

^voluntary compliance'

employer's

Indus.,

(11th Cir.

than could litigating proceeding at
Ford Motor Co.

Prison

(quoting

defendants

offers

Fed.

of the

to

Further,

allowing

reinstatement

without

reasonable justification "would allow an employee to avoid [his]
obligation
ordered

to

mitigate

damages

reinstatement."

by

holding

Stanfield,

867

out

F.2d

for
at

a

court-

1296.

But

courts have recognized many reasons why a claimant's refusal of

reinstatement may be reasonable,
between

parties,

retirement,
Lewis,

the

date

of

claimant's

the

claimant's

mental

and

anticipated

physical

health.

953 F.2d at 1280.

In
right

and

the

including discord or antagonism

support
to

Answering

complaint

of

their

argument

reinstatement,
Service,

with

Inc.

the

that

Defendants
In

Equal

Stanfield,

Employment

Plaintiff

rely
the

on

waived

his

Stanfield

v.

plaintiff

Opportunity

filed

a

Commission

following termination from defendant who cited her inability to
work

1293.

as

the

reason

for

termination.

Before her termination,

Stanfield,

867

F.2d

at

the plaintiff experienced health
10

problems that would occasionally interrupt her work schedule and

took

a

two-month

husband.

Id.

leave
Upon

of

absence

attempting

to

to

care

return

notified that she was no longer needed.

for

to

her

work,

ailing
she

was

Id.

After a jury verdict and judgment in the plaintiff's favor,
she moved for "an award of interim pay and front pay in lieu of
reinstatement."

plaintiff's

plaintiff;

Id.

motion,

however

recent

death.

denied

defendendat

Id.

to

reinstatement

at

Id.

at

company's

court

Soon

for

front
Id.

after,

pay,

offer

a

However,

of

her

husband's

of

district

instead

of

this

the

appealed the

her

was

holding
right

holding

reinstatement

court

ordering

reversed,

waiver

on

reinstate

The defendant

constituted

rule

to

the

Eleventh Circuit

1296.

could

offered

declined because

and the

refusal

the

defendant

1295.

motion

order,

reinstatement.

the

the

Before

reinstate her.

Plaintiff's

"that

12 94.

plaintiff

plaintiff's

that

at

to

assumed

otherwise

acceptable." Id.

The present

case is

distinguishable

from Stanfield because

there is no evidence that Defendants made a good-faith offer of
reinstatement to Plaintiff.
asked whether

finding

Stanfield
Lewis,

Defendants'

Plaintiff would like to be

have not referred to,

for

At best,

a

and

counsel merely

reinstated.

and the Court is unaware of,

deposition
similar

answer

cases.

to

See

953 F.2d at 1277.

11

constitute
Ford

Motor,

a

Defendants

any authority

waiver
458

U.S.

under
219;

As
that

the movants,

Plaintiff

Defendants
Plaintiff

his

waived

never
could

right

to

Defendants bear the burden of establishing
his

made

not

a

good-faith

decline

future

reinstatement

an

offer

claim.

offer
of

of

Because

reinstatement,

reinstatement

reinstatement.

nor

waive

Defendants'

motion

for

Defendants'

motion

for

summary judgment is therefore DENIED.

IV.

As

discussed,

summary

judgment

reconsideration.

the

CONCLUSION

Court

and

Plaintiff's

(Docs.

57,

DENIES AS MOOT

Plaintiff's

(Doc.

The

60.)

Court

62.)

amended

also

motion

Additionally,

original motion

attorney's fees and costs.
Doc.

DENIES

DENIES

for

Br.

the

Court

reconsideration.

Defendants'

(Def.'s Opp.

for

request

for

to Reconsideration,

66 at 9-10.)

As

mentioned

dismissed

all

including

front

of

above,

in

the

Plaintiff's

pay.

May

20,

claims

Plaintiff's

2015

Order,

for

monetary

remaining

the

Court
relief

claim

for

reinstatement shall proceed to trial.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

/^^day of June

2016.

HONORABfe&^J.

RANDAL HALL

UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

^SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

12