Murillo et al v. Coryell County Tradesmen LLC et al

Filing 240

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ronald Franks Construction Company, LLC's 221 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plainti ffs' 222 Motion to Extend Submission Date is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 223 Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion to Continue is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 1/19/2017. (mmv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NANCY MURILLO, et al.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-3641

CORYELL COUNTY TRADESMEN, LLC,
et al.

SECTION: “G”(1)

ORDER
In this litigation, Plaintiffs, comprised of more than 150 individuals hired to work on a
construction and renovation project located at 225 Baronne Street in New Orleans, Louisiana,
assert that Defendants did not pay overtime wages or minimum wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.1 Plaintiffs also bring a cause of action under the Louisiana Private Works
Act.2 On December 20, 2016, Defendant Ronald Franks Construction Company, LLC (“RFC”)
filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment.”3 On December 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to
Extend Submission Date” requesting that the Court extend the submission date for the pending
motion for summary judgment until March 29, 2017.4 Plaintiffs assert that the motion for summary
judgment relies on statements by RFC representatives who Plaintiffs have requested to depose, but
have not yet had the opportunity to do so.5 Plaintiffs aver that discovery has been proceeding

1

Rec. Doc. 48; Rec. Doc. 52-1 at 1.

2

Rec. Doc. 48 at 10.

3

Rec. Doc. 221.

4

Rec. Doc. 222.

5

Rec. Doc. 222-1 at 1.

1

expeditiously, but that it would be prejudicial to require Plaintiffs to respond to RFC’s motion
prior to obtaining the relevant deposition discovery and reviewing thousands of pages of transcripts
and exhibits.6 On December 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to RFC’s motion for summary
judgment, arguing that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) allows the Court to delay
consideration of the motion for summary judgment to allow Plaintiffs additional time to conduct
the depositions.7 Plaintiffs also filed a “Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion to
Continue,” asserting that the Court should consider the motion to continue on an expedited basis
before considering the motion for summary judgment. 8
Pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a nonmovant shows that
“it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition” to a motion for summary judgment, the
Court may: “(1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or
declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Rule 56(d) “provides
a mechanism for dealing with the problem of premature summary judgment motions.”9 Rule 56(d)
“allows for further discovery to safeguard non-moving parties from summary judgment motions
that they cannot adequately oppose.”10 “Such motions are broadly favored and should be liberally

6

Id.

7

Rec. Doc. 225-1 at 1–2.

8

Rec. Doc. 223.

9

State Farm Fire & Cas., Co. v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 10-1922, 2011 WL 3567466, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug.
15, 2011) (citing Parakkavetty v. Indus Int'l, Inc., 2004 WL 354317, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb.12, 2004) (citing Owens v.
Estate of Erwin, 968 F.Supp. 320, 322 (N.D.Tex. 1997))).
10

Culwell v. City of Fort Worth, 468 F.3d 868, 871 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
901 F.2d 1281, 1285 (5th Cir.1990)).

2

granted.”11
In its motion for summary judgment, RFC argues that Plaintiffs cannot show that RFC was
either their employer or was part of an enterprise that employed the plaintiffs.12 In support of its
motion, RFC cites extensively to the declaration of at least one RFC representative, Jaime Franks.13
In response, Plaintiffs aver that they cannot properly oppose the motion until they conduct
additional discovery and are able to depose RFC’s representatives.14 Therefore, because Plaintiffs
cannot adequately oppose the motion for summary judgment until further discovery is conducted,
the Court finds that denial of the motion for summary judgment without prejudice pursuant to Rule
56(d) is proper. The Court notes that, pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order, the parties have
until May 17, 2017, to complete discovery, and any non-evidentiary pretrial motions must be filed
in sufficient time to permit hearing thereon no later than May 24, 2017.15 Accordingly, pursuant
to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will deny RFC’s motion for
summary judgment without prejudice to allow the parties additional time to conduct discovery.
Accordingly,

11

Id. (citing Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir. 1991)).

12

Rec. Doc. 221-3 at 1.

13

See id.; Rec. Doc. 221-4.

14

See Rec. Doc. 225-1.

15

Rec. Doc. 168.

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ronald Franks Construction Company,
LLC’s “Motion for Summary Judgment” is DENIED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 56(d) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Extend Submission Date” is
DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Expedited Consideration of
Motion to Continue” is DENIED AS MOOT.

19th
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA this _____ day of January, 2017.
________________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4