Solo et al v. United Parcel Service Co.

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 5 MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe)

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, [phone]