Lazo et al v. Sodexo, Inc.

Filing 77

Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr: ORDER entered denying 63 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 32 Motion to Certify Class (Halley, Taylor)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-13366-GAO
TRACEY LAZO, JAMEN HARPER, MUSTAPHA JARRAF, NY’COLE YOUNG THOMAS,
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SODEXO, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
March 29, 2017
O’TOOLE, D.J.
Currently pending before the Court are three motions: the plaintiffs’ first Motion for Class
Certification (dkt. no. 32), the plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification (dkt. no. 61),
and the defendant’s Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification (dkt.
no. 63). The competing motions flow from the parties’ disparate interpretations of various court
deadlines.
The original deadline for the filing of the plaintiffs’ class certification motion was May 30,
2016, one month after the close of Phase I fact discovery on (1) the merits of the plaintiffs’
individual claims and (2) whether class certification is appropriate. One week before the close of
Phase I fact discovery and five weeks before the plaintiffs’ certification motion was due, the
defendant moved to compel discovery and to extend the Phase I discovery period. The plaintiffs
did not oppose the request for an extension and, although they did not raise the question with the
Court prior to their motion deadline, appear to represent that they believed the motion “would
necessarily and reasonably have entailed extending the deadline for submission of the Plaintiffs’

motion for class certification.” (Pls.’ Reply to Def.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Am. Mot. for Class
Certification 5 (dkt. no. 76); accord Pls.’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Strike Pls.’ Mot. for Class
Certification 1-2 (dkt. no. 40).) The plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify Class on June 16, 2016,
and the defendant moved to strike the motion as untimely.1
At a subsequent hearing on the then-pending motions, which also included a summary
judgment motion and a motion to strike the summary judgment motion, the Court indicated it
considered the appropriate resolution to be a “Chapter 11 reorganization” where the parties would
“just start again.”2 (Nov. 18, 2016 Tr. Mot. Hearing 10 (dkt. no. 59).) The Court permitted the
defendant to take additional discovery in the form of depositions of the plaintiffs, and proposed
that after discovery was completed, “there will be a motion to certify. It will be a new motion, and
there will be a response, and we’ll deal with it.” (Id. 11; see also id. 14 (suggesting a “new motion
to recast” the proposed class definition).) Both before and after the Court outlined that course of
action, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs should not be permitted to file a new motion to
certify and that, after the defendant took additional discovery, it should oppose the then-pending
motion to certify. Ultimately, the parties and Court agreed to extend Phase I discovery for the
defendant through January 31, 2017, and to set the “deadline to oppose class certification” for
February 17, 2017. (Id. 15; see also Nov. 18, 2017 Clerk’s Note (dkt. no. 57).)
On February 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their Amended Motion for Class Certification. On
February 7, the defendant moved to strike the amended motion to certify and, on February 17,

1

The plaintiffs also assert that the defendant did not complete its document production until May
25, 2016, five days prior to the original certification motion deadline.
2
Hours before the hearing, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the plaintiffs’ individual
claims, which, among other things, called into question the pertinence of the pending motion to
compel. Additionally, the day before the hearing, new counsel entered an appearance on behalf of
the plaintiffs.
2

opposed the plaintiffs’ original Motion for Class Certification. The plaintiffs contend that the
amended motion is based upon the “explicit statement” and “plain instructions” that the plaintiffs
“would file a ‘new motion’ for class certification and there would be a Defendant’s response to
that motion after discovery was completed.” (Pls.’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Strike Pls.’ Am. Mot.
for Class Certification 1, 3 (dkt. no. 69); see also id. 2 (describing that they filed their amended
motion “[i]n accordance with this Court’s plain instructions”).) The defendant maintains that the
plaintiffs’ amended motion is untimely as it was “clear” at the hearing and in the Clerk’s Note that
the Court “did not allow a new class certification.” (Def.’s Reply Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def.’s
Mot. to Strike Pls.’ Am. Mot. for Class Certification 2 (dkt. no. 73).)
Regardless of what the Court intended with respect to the various deadlines, the only thing
that is clear from the current posture of the case is that the resolution of the scheduling issues
surrounding class certification was unclear. While the better—and most cost-efficient—course
would have been for the parties simply to seek clarification before engaging in further motion
practice, the Court takes plaintiffs’ counsel at their word regarding their understanding of the
purported ambiguities and therefore finds good cause to consider the plaintiffs’ amended
certification motion as timely filed and the original motion replaced.3 See Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b)(1)(A).
Consequently, the plaintiffs’ first Motion for Class Certification (dkt. no. 32) is MOOT
and the defendant’s Motion to Strike (dkt. no. 63) is DENIED. The defendant’s opposition to the

3

With respect to the defendant’s contention that the Court cannot extend the deadlines without a
motion by the plaintiff, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), the Court notes that the defendant’s motion
to extend Phase I discovery, which the plaintiffs maintain would result in extending the motion for
class certification deadline, was filed before the original deadline passed and the plaintiffs’
amended motion was filed before the purported extended deadline expired. Of course, in light of
the confusion, it would not have been misguided to have protectively sought an extension.
3

plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification is due within twenty-one (21) days of this
Order,4 and any reply by the plaintiffs is due fourteen (14) days thereafter.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

4

The Court is mindful that the defendant has already expended the time and costs of opposing the
original motion. However, in light of the conflicting interpretations of the Court’s scheduling
orders, the defendant likewise could have sought clarification or a stay of deadlines while its
Motion to Strike was pending.
4