Arnold et al v. DirecTV, Inc. et al
Filing
214
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Opt-ins For Failure to Comply with Order Directing Them to Respond to Discovery Questionnaire 192 is GRANTED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Opt-In Plainti ffs set forth in the list attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference herein are DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the statute of limitations for each of these Opt-In Plaintiffs shall be tolled for sixty (60) da ys from the date of this Order to allow for refiling if they so choose; at the conclusion of that period, the statute of limitations will commence running against the claims of the Opt-In Plaintiffs. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/14/14. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(JWD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMIE ARNOLD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DIRECTV, INC. d/b/a DIRECTV HOME
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:10-CV-00352-JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Opt-ins For Failure to
Comply with Order Directing Them to Respond to Discovery Questionnaire. (Doc. No. 192) The
motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition.
This is an action for unpaid wages and overtime pay brought by Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29
U.S.C. §§ 201-219, and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (“MMWL”), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§
290.500-530. The Court conditionally certified an FLSA collective action of persons who (1)
worked as installation or service technicians for DIRECTV, third-party Home Services Providers
(“HSPs”), or through one of their subcontractors, since May 1, 2009, (2) exclusively installed or
serviced DIRECTV equipment, (3) received compensation on a piece-rate basis, and (4) worked
more than 40 hours per week. (Doc. Nos. 121, 134)
Thereafter, the parties agreed to submit a questionnaire to each Opt-In Plaintiffs in order
to gather information about the eligibility of the Opt-Ins, composition of the class, and nature of
1
the claims and damages. On September 26, 2013, this Court entered an order directing that
Plaintiffs send the parties’ agreed upon discovery questionnaire to those individual Opt-Ins not
subject to arbitration agreements. (Doc. No. 189) The Court further ordered that the Opt-Ins
receiving the questionnaire respond no later than December 3, 2013, and subsequently extended
the deadline to respond to January 17, 2014, and the deadline to serve responses on Defendants
to February 14, 2014. (Doc. No. 191) The questionnaire was mailed to approximately 1,421 OptIns. (Doc. No. 193-2) As of February 14, 2014, Plaintiffs had served timely questionnaire
responses for 658 opt-ins. (Declaration of Patricia J. Martin, Doc. No. 195-1, ¶ 4 ) The names of
the 763 nonresponding Opt-Ins are set forth in Exhibit A, attached to Martin’s Declaration. (Doc.
No. 195-2)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), Defendants move for an order
dismissing the nonresponding Opt-Ins with prejudice, arguing that their failure to respond is
prejudicial because it deprives Defendants of critical discovery necessary to defend against this
case, including discovery needed for decertification and trial. (Doc. No. 192, p. 1) Plaintiffs
respond that dismissal can only be considered as a sanction if there is a Rule 37 order compelling
discovery, a willful violation of that order, and prejudice to the other party. (Doc. No. 194, p. 2)
Further, a dismissal with prejudice is an “extreme sanction” that should only be used in cases of
willful disobedience of a court order or where a party exhibits a pattern of intentional delay,
neither of which are applicable here. (Id., p. 3)
Although the questionnaire was not court-ordered discovery, it was in fact a discovery
process agreed upon by the parties in lieu of traditional interrogatories and requests for
production. The failure of these Opt-Ins to respond to the questionnaire makes it impossible for
the Court to determine whether they are similarly situated such that they could proceed
2
collectively in this action. The Court will not, however, foreclose these individuals from pursing
their claims individually if they so choose. Thus, the claims of the nonresponding Opt-Ins will be
dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Opt-ins For Failure to
Comply with Order Directing Them to Respond to Discovery Questionnaire [192] is
GRANTED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Opt-In Plaintiffs set forth in the list attached
hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference herein are DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the statute of limitations for each of these Opt-In
Plaintiffs shall be tolled for sixty (60) days from the date of this Order to allow for refiling if
they so choose; at the conclusion of that period, the statute of limitations will commence running
against the claims of the Opt-In Plaintiffs.
_________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of July, 2014.
3
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?