Baouch v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 252

ORDER that the The defendants' motion (Filing No. 246 ) to extend the discovery deadline is granted. A progression schedule will be established at the planning conference. The defendants' motion (Filing No. 249 ) to deny plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction without prejudice is granted. Plaintiffs' motion (Filing No. 236 ) for summary judgment and permanent injunction is denied without prejudice. A planning conference to establish a progression schedule shall be held in the chambers on November 20, 2015, at 9 a.m. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
YASSINE BAOUCH, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
)
d/b/a WERNER TRUCKING, and
)
DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:12CV408

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions.
Defendants move the Court to extend the discovery deadline
(Filing No. 246).

In addition, defendants move this Court to

deny the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion (Filing No. 236)
without prejudice (Filing No. 249).

The issue before the Court

is whether plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and permanent
injunction is proper at this time.
The defendants are Werner Enterprises, Inc. and Drivers
Management, L.L.C. (collectively “Werner”).
company.

Werner is a trucking

Plaintiffs are current and former Werner employees who

allege Werner has violated the Fair Labor Standard Act (“FLSA”)
and various state laws including the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act
(“NWHA”).

Essentially, the plaintiffs claim Werner allowed its

employees to opt into a per diem program which circumvented
minimum wage requirements.

The per diem program offers Werner’s

employees tax-free reimbursement for each day its drivers spend
away from home.

Importantly, Werner deducts this tax-free pay

from the drivers’ wages.
The Court has not established a scheduling order for
Daubert motions, summary judgment motions, or a trial date. The
defendants have not had adequate time to depose the plaintiffs’
experts and additional opt-in plaintiffs.

The Court finds that

plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion is premature.
clear preference in the law for adequate discovery.

There is a
Stanback v.

Best Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir. 1999)
(citing In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab.
Litig., 113 F.3d 1484, 1489–90 (8th Cir. 1997)); Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(d).

Therefore, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion to

extend the discovery deadline.

The Court will also deny the

plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice.

The

parties will be able to submit cross motions for summary judgment
at the close of discovery.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
1) The defendants’ motion (Filing No. 246) to extend
the discovery deadline is granted.

A progression schedule will

be established at the planning conference.
2) The defendants’ motion (Filing No. 249) to deny
plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction
without prejudice is granted.

Plaintiffs’ motion (Filing No.

236) for summary judgment and permanent injunction is denied
without prejudice.
3) A planning conference to establish a progression
schedule shall be held in the chambers of the undersigned on:
Friday, November 20, 2015, at 9 a.m.
in Suite 3190, Roman L. Hruska United States Courthouse, 111
South 18th Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska.

The parties may participate

by telephone by notifying the Chambers of the undersigned: (402)
661-7320.
DATED this 12th day of November, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court