Wells et al v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Filing 240

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Order on Summary Judgment [338, 219] is DENIED.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 12/3/13. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID WELLS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________
REGINALD GRAY, et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:10-CV-2080-JAR

Case No. 4:06-CV-00422-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.’s Motion
for Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s Order on Summary Judgment. (Gray Doc. No. 338; Wells
Doc. No. 219) Plaintiffs filed their Response in Opposition to the motion on November 6, 2013.
(Gray Doc. No. 349; Wells Doc. No. 230) FedEx did not file a reply. The motion is, therefore, fully
briefed and ready for disposition.
FedEx moves the Court to reconsider its Order denying it summary judgment on Plaintiffs’
fraud claims. In support of its motion, FedEx argues the Court erred in allowing Plaintiffs to proceed
on a “benefit conferred” theory of general damages rather than on a “benefit of the bargain” theory
of damages. (Mem. in Supp., Gray Doc. No. 339, Wells Doc. No. 219, p. 3) According to FedEx,

the benefit of the bargain for Plaintiffs would be based on the deal Plaintiffs claim they would have
enjoyed had FedEx’s representations regarding their status as independent contractors been true. But
the “bargain” Plaintiffs struck with FedEx, which they allege was the result of misrepresentations,
was not that Plaintiffs would be employees, but rather, that they would be “true” independent
contractors. (Id., pp. 3-4)
The Court will reconsider an interlocutory order only if the movant demonstrates (1) that it
did not have a fair opportunity to argue the matter previously, and (2) that granting the motion is
necessary to correct a significant error. Brodie v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2011 WL
1559763, at *2 (E.D.Mo. Apr. 25, 2011)(citing Discount Tobacco Warehouse, Inc. v. Briggs
Tobacco and Specialty Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3522476, at *2 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 2, 2010)). The Court
finds FedEx has had ample opportunity to fairly argue its position on Plaintiffs’ theory of damages.
Moreover, granting FedEx’s motion will not remedy any errors, much less a significant error, in that
the Court is essentially applying a benefit of the bargain analysis in this case. Although FedEx
classified Plaintiffs as independent contractors in its Operating Agreements, the Court has
determined as a matter of law that the Agreements were in fact employment agreements. As such,
Plaintiffs are entitled to seek as damages the benefits they should have received as employees—the
benefit of the bargain they made when entering into their employment agreements with FedEx.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.’s Motion
for Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s Order on Summary Judgment [338, 219] is DENIED.

-2-

Dated this 3rd day of December, 2013.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-