David et al v. Signal InternationaL LLC et al

Filing 1982

ORDER AND REASONS- IT IS ORDERED that Signal's 1845 Motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs move for certification within 30 days of this Order. Because Plaintiffs have already opted in and substantial discovery has occurred, t he Court will not entertain a motion for conditional certification but instead will proceed directly to final certification and impose a heightened evidentiary burden. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Signal respond to Plaintiffs' motion within 15 da ys of service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will DEFER a decision on 1847 Plaintiffs' FLSA merits motion until after it has ruled on certification. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no FLSA claims will be adjudicated at the January 12, 2015 jury trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/14/2014. (bwn)

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 “E”

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION "E"

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 13-6218
(c/w 13-6219, 13-6220,
13-6221, 14-732, 141818)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION "E"

Applies To:
David v. Signal
(No. 08-1220)

1

ORDER
12 Plaintiffs have asserted claims on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").1 372 Plaintiffs have
opted in. Although the FLSA claims have been pending for years, Plaintiffs never moved
for conditional certification to proceed as a collective action.

Defendants Signal

International, LLC, Signal International Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., and
Signal International Texas, L.P. ("Signal") now move for partial summary judgment,
arguing the failure to move for conditional certification requires the opt-in Plaintiffs be
dismissed without prejudice.2

The weight of authority establishes that conditional

certification is merely a "useful case management tool for district court to employ in
appropriate cases," not a procedural requirement for FLSA collective actions.3
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Signal's Motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs move for certification within 30
days of this Order. Because Plaintiffs have already opted in and substantial discovery
has occurred, the Court will not entertain a motion for conditional certification but
instead will proceed directly to final certification and impose a heightened evidentiary
burden.4

29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
R. Doc. 1845.
3 Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 555 n.10 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord
Zavala v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., 691 F.3d 527, 536 (3d Cir. 2012); Thuy Uyen Nguyen v. Portable Prod.
Servs., LP, No. H-13-00880, 2014 WL 843249, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2014); Hickson v. U.S. Postal
Serv., No. 5:09CV83, 2010 WL 3855887, at *5 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2010)
4 See Nieddu v. Lifetime Fitness, Inc., 977 F. Supp. 2d 686, 692 (S.D. Tex. 2013) ("A number of courts
have held that if substantial discovery occurs before the first, conditional certification stage, the court may
bypass the first stage and proceed directly to the second stage of certification analysis.") (internal
quotation marks omitted).
1

2

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Signal respond to Plaintiffs' motion within
15 days of service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will DEFER a decision on
Plaintiffs' FLSA merits motion until after it has ruled on certification.5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no FLSA claims will be adjudicated at the
January 12, 2015 jury trial.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of December, 2014.

______________ _______ _ _______
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

R. Doc. 1847.
3