NOLL v. FLOWERS FOODS INC et al

Filing 306

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION denying 293 Motion for Reconsideration By JUDGE LANCE E. WALKER. (CJD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

TIMOTHY NOLL, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFFS
V.

FLOWERS FOODS, INC., et al.,
DEFENDANTS

1:15-CV-00493-LEW

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No.
293). Through the Motion, Plaintiffs ask that I reconsider the entry of summary judgment
in favor of Defendants, which judgment was based, in part, on the finding that Plaintiffs’
activities bring them within the scope of the Motor Carrier Act exemption pertaining to
engagement in interstate commerce. Plaintiffs argue I should vacate that finding and any
resulting legal conclusion because Defendants presented in another action, Martins v.
Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-3145 (M.D. Fla.), arguments that distributors in Florida
are not “transportation workers” for purposes of the residual exemption clause found in
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument for reconsideration, Defendants’ FAA argument is
not logically incompatible with their MCA argument. Bissonette v. Lepage Bakeries Park
St., LLC, 460 F. Supp. 3d 191, 199-202 & n.11 (D. Conn. 2020) (acknowledging that
distributors participate in interstate commerce, but also finding that they are not
1

transportation workers for purposes of the FAA). Nor would it necessarily matter if the
arguments were incompatible. Martel v. Stafford, 992 F.2d 1244, 1248 (1st Cir. 1993)
(“[S]tatements contained in briefs submitted by a party’s attorney in one case cannot
routinely be used in another case as evidentiary admissions of the party.”).
Ultimately, my task during the summary judgment review process was to “pierce
the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for
trial,” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)
(quoting Advisory Committee Note to 1963 Amendment of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)), not to
evaluate whether a legal argument presented in a different action on an issue that was not
advanced in this action should pave a path to trial for Plaintiffs regardless of the evidence
presented in the summary judgment record. Nevertheless, when I consider the supposedly
conflicting positions, it strikes me that they can be reconciled given the different legal
issues under consideration. For these reasons, I disagree with Plaintiffs’ contention that
their supplemental reconsideration record raises “serious concerns about the evidence and
the integrity of the [summary judgment] proceedings.” Plaintiffs’ Reply at 3 (ECF No.
297).
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2nd day of February, 2021.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2