David et al v. Signal InternationaL LLC et al
Filing
1417
ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 1389 Motion for Reconsideration, or in the alternative, for Clarification of Order. IT IS ORDERED that the Court's 1379 Order of 8/28/2013 is clarified to provide that the statutes of limitations are tolled through 8/28/2013, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/14/2013. (tsf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KURIAN DAVID, et al.
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
No. 08-1220
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
SECTION āEā
Related Case:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
No. 12-557
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
SECTION āEā
Applies To: David et al. v. Signal International et al. (08-1220)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Order filed by
defendant Malvern C. Burnett, Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., and The Gulf Coast Immigration
Center, LLC (collectively referred to as "Burnett").1 Plaintiffs oppose Burnett's motion.2 For
the following reasons, Burnett's Motion for Clarification is GRANTED to the extent set
forth herein.
This action was brought on behalf of a putative class of approximately 578 workers
1
R. Doc. 1389.
2
R. Doc. 1393.
1
from India. After class certification of plaintiffs' claims was denied on January 4, 2012, the
action proceeded with the twelve (12) named plaintiffs.
The statutes of limitations for plaintiffs' claims were tolled for the putative class
members from the filing of the class action complaint on March 7, 2008 until at least
February 3, 2012, the deadline for plaintiffs to file an appeal from Judge Zainey's Order and
Reasons denying class certification.3 The putative class members' state law claims for fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract were tolled an additional 120 days to
May 3, 2012 by Order of Judge Zainey following plaintiffs' consent motion.4
On July 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court to toll the statutes of
limitations with respect to the putative class members who would have been represented
by the class representatives identified in the caption to these proceedings if a class had been
certified.5 Plaintiffs sought tolling with respect to claims under the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2003 ("TVPRA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
("RICO"), the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871, discrimination claims pursuant to the Civil Rights
Act of 1866 (Section 1981), as well as state law tort and contract claims.6 This Court,
employing its discretion and equity powers, tolled the statutes of limitations for the putative
class members through August 28, 2013.7 Burnett now requests this Court to reconsider
3
R. Doc. 1117.
4
R. Doc. 982.
5
R. Doc. 1197.
6
R. Doc. 1197-1.
7
R. Doc. 1379. See Braun v. Sauerwein, 77 U.S. 218 (1870).
2
and clarify its order.8
Burnett's Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification is GRANTED to the extent
it requests clarification of the Court's Order of August 28, 2013. Accordingly, IT IS
ORDERED that the Court's Order of August 28, 2013 is clarified to provide that the
statutes of limitations are tolled through August 28, 2013 only with respect to federal law
claims brought in this action.9
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of October, 2013.
___
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
R. Doc. 1389.
9
The Court held a status conference on October 10, 2013, during which it learned that no putative
class members seek to be joined as named plaintiffs in this action. Additional amendments to the
pleadings were not requested and will not be allowed. Because no additional plaintiffs will be joined in the
case, and all of the twelve (12) named plaintiffs' federal and state claims are timely, tolling appears to be
unnecessary.
3
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?