Bryant et al v. United Furniture Industries, Inc. et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 74 Motion to Strike 72 Plaintiff's Reply or for Alternate Relief. Defendants may file a sur-rebuttal, due March 11, 2015. No extension of time shall be granted. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 03/04/2015. (geb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
RACHEL BROWN HEFFERNAN BRYANT, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
CAUSE NO.: 1:13-CV-00246-SA-DAS
UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Reply or for
Alternate Relief . Plaintiffs initiated this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) and subsequently filed a Motion to Certify Class . In the certification motion and
accompanying memorandum brief, Plaintiff argued that certification was appropriate pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant argued in its response that Rule 23 is
an inappropriate vehicle for certification of actions under the FLSA. See LaChapelle v. OwensIllinois, Inc., 513 F.2d 286-88 (5th Cir. 1975). Plaintiffs, in reply, rephrased their initial request
and emphasized that they seek preliminary certification under Section 16(b) of the FLSA. 29
U.S.C. § 216(b). The Defendants have therefore filed the pending motion, requesting the Court
to either strike Plaintiffs’ request for certification pursuant to Section 16(b) or allow Defendants
to file a sur-rebuttal addressing the merits of the Section 16(b) analysis raised for the first time
by Plaintiffs’ reply.
In the interests of justice, the Court declines to strike Plaintiffs’ arguments advanced
pursuant to Section 16(b), but finds Defendants’ request to submit a sur-rebuttal to be well taken.
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Reply or for Alternate Relief  is therefore
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants are permitted to address preliminary
certification under Section 16(b) in a memorandum brief, which is due March 11, 2015, and
which is to comply with the limitations applicable to a respondent’s memorandum brief, set forth
in Uniform Local Civil Rule 7(b)(5).
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of March, 2015.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?