THOMPSON et al. v. K.R. DRENTH TRUCKING, INC. et al.

Filing 84

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER - Defendants' Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 78 ) is DENIED. In conjunction with their Motion to Reconsider, Defendants moved the Court to stay enforcement of the Court's order instructing Defenda nts to electronically produce certain information on potential class members within 30 days. Defendants' Motion to Stay (Dkt. 80 ) is GRANTED, and Defendants have 14 days from the day of this entry to comply with the Court's directive to produce the requisite information. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/3/2011. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
vs.
)
K.R. DENTH TRUCKING, INC., THOMAS J. )
MANZKE, KENNETH S. DRENTH, STEVEN )
RUCKERT, JOHN MCGEE and KENNETH )
)
ANDRESEN
)
)
Defendants.
)
JASON THOMPSON and MARK A.
HAYDEN, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated

Collective Action
Case No. 1:10-cv-0135-TWP-DKL

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This dispute arises out of allegations that Defendants (“Defendants” or “KRD”) violated
the Fair Labor Standard Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay a certain group of truck drivers
(“Plaintiffs”) overtime premiums. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of the following
proposed collective action:
All present and former Non-Recyclable Drivers employed by
[KRD] and any subsidiary that has worked over 40 hours in a
workweek on or after January 18, 2007.
(Dkt. 70 at 1). On February 11, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion, ruling that the Motor
Carrier Act exemption applied to named Plaintiffs, thus rendering them ineligible for overtime
pay and unsuitable collective action representatives. On March 11, 2011, Plaintiffs asked the
Court to reconsider its ruling. On June 15, 2011, the Court heeded this request, and, in doing so,
granted Plaintiffs’ underlying Motion for Conditional Certification. (See Dkt. 77). Not to be
outdone, Defendants immediately asked the Court to reconsider its ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Reconsider.

By now, the parties are certainly well aware of the purpose of a motion to reconsider. “A
motion for reconsideration performs a valuable function where the Court has patently
misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the
Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Bank of
Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990) (citation and
quotations omitted). Motions to reconsider should be “rare.” Id. (citation and internal quotations
omitted). This case, of course, is proving to the be the exception to that rule.
Simply stated, the Court stands by its ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider,
especially in light of the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Johnson v. Hix Wrecker Service,
Inc., – F.3d –, 2011 WL 2586284 (7th Cir. July 1, 2011), which squarely addressed the
“interstate commerce” requirement of the Motor Carrier Act exemption. Notably, the Seventh
Circuit held that an employer’s affidavit stating that a driver “was subject to being assigned an
out of state . . . run at all times during his employment” was insufficient to establish the
applicability of the exemption as a matter of law. Id. at *3. Suffice it to say, this decision
reinforces the Court’s view that its initial decision denying conditional class certification
erroneously “jumped the gun.”
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 78) is DENIED. In conjunction
with their Motion to Reconsider, Defendants moved the Court to stay enforcement of the Court’s
order instructing Defendants to electronically produce certain information on potential class
members within 30 days. Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Dkt. 80) is GRANTED, and Defendants
have 14 days from the day of this entry to comply with the Court’s directive to produce the
requisite information.

2

SO ORDERED:

08/03/2011

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to:
Emmanuel V.R. Boulukos
ICE MILLER LLP
[e-mail],[e-mail]
David J. Carr
ICE MILLER LLP
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Paul Conrad Sweeney
ICE MILLER LLP
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Stephen E. Vander Woude
LANTING PAARLBERG & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Ronald E. Weldy
WELDY & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]

3