IVANOVS et al v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC.

Filing 86

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 9/6/2019. (tf, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SONYA IVANOVS and KATIE
HOFFMAN, on behalf of
themselves and all other
similarly situated employees,

1:17-cv-01742-NLH-AMD
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE,
INC.,
Defendant.

APPEARANCES
MICHAEL JOHN PALITZ
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
830 3RD AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10022
GREGG I. SHAVITZ (ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE)
ALAN L. QUILES (ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE)
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A
1515 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 404
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
On behalf of Plaintiffs
MICHAEL D. HOMANS
HOMANS PECK LLC
1835 MARKET ST
SUITE 1050
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
On behalf of Defendant
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Sonya Ivanovs and Katie Hoffman, on
behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, allege

that Defendant, BAYADA Home Health Care, Inc., unlawfully
classifies all of its Client Service Managers (“CSMs”)
nationwide as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201,
et seq. (“FLSA”); and
WHEREAS, the Court granted the conditional certification of
Plaintiffs’ two nationwide sub-classes: Sub-class 1 is BAYADA
Home Health CSMs who worked for BAYADA at any location
nationwide during the three years prior to the Court’s order
allowing notice; and sub-class 2 is the BAYADA Home Care CSMs
who worked for BAYADA at any location nationwide during the
three years prior to the Court’s order allowing notice (Docket
No. 56); and
WHEREAS, the conditional certification conferred onto
Plaintiffs the right to distribute a notice of this putative
collective action to all potential opt-in plaintiffs, and
Defendant was obligated to participate in this process; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum
Opinion and Order resolving the parties’ disputes over the form
of notice, the method of dissemination of that notice, and the
database of employees to which the notice will be distributed;
and
WHEREAS, the Court reserved decision as to Plaintiffs’
request to send a reminder notice, and permitted Plaintiffs to
2

renew their request contemporaneous with the halfway mark of the
notice period (Docket No. 71 at 6); and
WHEREAS, the notice period has reached the halfway mark and
Plaintiffs have renewed their request for a reminder notice to
be sent to potential collective action members (Docket No. 80);
and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs argue that errors by the claims
administrator in the notices (identification number bar codes
and self-addressed stamped envelopes (“SASE”) were missing) have
frustrated the opt-in process and have resulted in a low opt-in
rate, and a reminder postcard would serve to ameliorate the
effect of those errors; and
WHEREAS, Defendant has objected to Plaintiffs’ request,
arguing that Plaintiffs chose the claims administrator, they
have not identified a single person who has not joined the
collective action because of the errors, Plaintiffs actually
benefitted from the lack of a SASE because potential collective
action members received a supplemental mailing with the SASE two
weeks later, and Plaintiffs only seek to have reminder postcards
sent to “stir up litigation” (Docket No. 82); and
WHEREAS, this Court has broad discretion in supervising the
notice process, Steinberg v. TD Bank, N.A., 2012 WL 2500331 at
*6 (D.N.J. 2012) (citing Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493
U.S. 165, 170 (1989); and
3

WHEREAS, the Court finds that the concerns of Plaintiffs do
not warrant the dissemination of a reminder postcard,
particularly because the original notice was sent via mail and
email, a second mailing with the SASE has already essentially
operated as a reminder notice, and Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that the mailed notices, despite their lack of bar
codes or SASEs, failed to provide the potential collective
action members with timely, accurate and informative notice of
Plaintiffs’ collective action, which is the purpose of notice
procedure; and
WHEREAS, the Court further finds if the Court were to
permit the mailing of a reminder postcard under these
circumstances, it would suggest the “appearance of judicial
endorsement of the merits of the action,” which the Court “must
take care to avoid,” Hoffmann-La Roche, 493 U.S. at 174 (further
explaining that a court’s “intervention in the notice process
for case management purposes is distinguishable in form and
function from the solicitation of claims,” and “[i]n exercising
the discretionary authority to oversee the notice-giving
process, courts must be scrupulous to respect judicial
neutrality”).
SO ORDERED.

Date:
September 6, 2019
At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
4