Solo et al v. United Parcel Service Co.

Filing 9


Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOE SOLO, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. No. 14-cv-12719 Hon. Gerald E. Rosen UNITED PARCEL SERVICE COMPANY Defendant. ___________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE In this companion case to Sivak v. United Parcel Service Company, 13-cv15263, Plaintiffs echo the same theories of liability that were at issue in Sivak based on their assertion that UPS overcharges customers who pay for loss/damage insurance.1 Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. (Plfs’ Mtn., Dkt. # 5). Plaintiffs did not support their Motion with any evidence and instead filed it to avoid any attempt by Defendant to pick-off putative class members through an offer of judgment. (Id. at 3). Recognizing its prematurity, Plaintiffs “reserve the right to amend or modify the classes and subclasses they seek to have certified after any appropriate discovery has occurred” and request 1 The Sivak Plaintiffs have filed a motion to vacate judgment and consolidate these cases. (13-cv-15263, Dkt. # 38). The Court addresses that motion in a separate opinion. that this Court “set a briefing schedule that takes into an (sic) account any discovery needs preparatory to determination of the class certification issues in this case.” (Id. at 3-4). Plaintiffs’ attorney filed a nearly identical motion in the Sivak matter, which this Court denied without prejudice. (13-cv-15263, Dkt. # 10). As with the Sivak class certification motion, Plaintiffs’ Motion “is premature and, without basic supporting evidence, prevents this Court from conducting a ‘rigorous analysis’ as to whether Plaintiffs have satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)’s prerequisites.” (Id. at 2) (citing Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011)). Moreover, “[i]t is the Court’s experience that discovery and potential further motion practice provides a necessary preamble to class certification issues.” (Id.). For all of the foregoing reasons and those set forth in this Court’s January 21, 2014 Opinion and Order in the Sivak matter, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. # 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pending discovery and future motion practice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 12, 2014 s/Gerald E. Rosen Chief, Judge, United States District Court I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on August 12, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Julie Owens Case Manager, (313) 234-5135

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?