Cardoza et al v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc. et al

Filing 178

ORDER Temporarily Staying Class Notice Process. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 168 Motion to Stay is GRANTED. Defendants' obligation to turn over the class- member-contact information and plaintiff counsel's obligations to prepare and serv e the notice as identified in Order #151 are hereby stayed until further notice. Motion Hearing set for 2/9/2015 10:30 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey re 167 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings and [169 ] MOTION to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/19/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Brooke Cardoza et al.,

5
6

Case No. 2:13-cv-01820-JAD-NJK

Plaintiffs
v.

7

Order Temporarily Staying Class
Notice Process

Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., et al.,
Defendants

8
9
10

On October 24, 2014, the court granted conditional class certification of this multi-state class

11

action by Outback Steakhouse Restaurant employees who allege their employer refused to pay wages

12

for required off-the-clock work, overtime, and minimum required wages to many thousands of

13

minimum-wage employees, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state

14

employment laws.1 In the conditional certification order, the court also approved the form of the

15

notice and consent-to-join form and gave defendants 60 days to provide plaintiffs’ counsel with all

16

names and addresses of the putative class members.2
On December 12, 2014, defendants advised the court of the Ninth Circuit’s November 12,

17
18

2014, opinion in Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., which addressed “an issue of first

19

impression in this circuit”: “the degree of specificity required to state a claim for failure to pay

20

minimum wages or overtime wages under the FLSA” post-Twombly and Iqbal.3 Defendants now

21

move the court to dismiss the claims, decertify the class, and stay the notice process in the meantime

22

while the parties complete their briefing on impact of the Landers decision—if any—on this case.4

23
1

Doc. 151.

2

Id.

26

3

Landers v. Quality Commc'ns, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 2014).

27

4

Docs. 167-169.

24
25

28

Page 1 of 2

1

Plaintiffs’ response to the pending motions is not due until December 29, 2014, and defendants’

2

obligation to turn over the class members’ names and addresses ripens on December 26, 2014.
The court has broad discretion in managing its docket.5 In exercising that discretion, the

3
4

court is guided by the goals of securing the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of actions. See

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Having undertaken a preliminary review of the Landers decision, the court finds

6

that it is in the best interests of all parties and judicial economy to resolve the pending 12(c) and

7

decertification motions before the notice process begins and the parties incur the tremendous related

8

expense. And, although the court is mindful that the timing of these requests otherwise suggests a

9

motive of delay, the reality is that the Ninth Circuit issued its Landers decision after conditional

10

certification was granted.

11

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to stay the

12

notice process [Doc. 168] is GRANTED. Defendants’ obligation to turn over the class-member-

13

contact information and plaintiff counsel’s obligations to prepare and serve the notice as

14

identified in Order #151 are hereby stayed until further notice. However, defendants are

15

strongly cautioned that they should continue preparing the class-member-contact information, which

16

they should have nearly ready now. If and/or when the court lifts this stay, the defendants will have

17

just one week to provide plaintiffs’ counsel with the contact information.

18

The parties shall appear for oral argument on the motion for judgment on the

19

pleadings and motion for decertification [Docs. 167, 169] at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, February 9,

20

2015.

21

DATED December 19, 2014.

22

_________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

23
24
25
5

27

See, e.g., Landis v. N. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (court has inherent power to
“control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants”).

28

Page 2 of 2

26