ASIRIFI et al v. OMNI ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Filing
88
OPINION. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 10/25/2013. (nr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DORIS ASIRIFI and CI-ITNEW
NWAFOR
lion. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
OPiNION
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 2:1 1-CV-04039 (DMC)(JBC)
V.
OM1JI ASSET MANAMGEMNT, LLC
d/b/a OMNI HEALTH SYSTEMS OF
NEW JERSEY AND WEST HUDSON
SUB-ACUTE CARE CENTER. LLC
Defimdant.
DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH. U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon the Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Decision
by Defendant Omni Asset Management, LLC d/b/a Omni Health Systems of New Jersey and West
Hudson Sub-Acute Care Center. LLC (‘West Hudson’ or Defendanf’). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 78, no oral argument was heard, After carefully considering the submissions of the parties, and
based upon the following, it is the finding of this Court that Defendant’s Appeal is denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Doris Asirifi and Chinew Nwafor (“Plaintiffs”) were employed as registered
nurses at West Hudson, a nursing facility. Plaintiffs claim that they are owed minimum wages
and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
§
201,
\w TersL\ Wage and Tloui La\ N J S \ 34 1 l-56a
(
‘NTWHL ) and seck to maintain
c/seq
el seq.
(“FLSA”) and under
this action individually and as a collective action under the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on
July 14, 2011, an Amended Complaint on March 16,2012, and a Second Amended Complaint
on April 30,2012. On January 30,2013, this Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.
On February 8,2013, Plaintiffs sent a letter to this Court asking that the Court enter an
amended scheduling order providing for discovery in light of the ruling on Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss. On March 1, 2013, Judge Falk entered a new scheduling order providing for further
discovery. On March 28, 2013, Defendant provided responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.
Subsequently, Plaintiffs provided Defendant with a request to correct deficiencies in the
responses. When Defendant did not comply with this request, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
on May 8, 2013. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to compel Defendant to respond to discovery
requests related to comparators to Plaintiffs’ individual claims and to provide information related
to the identities of potential opt-in Plaintiffs. On July 16, 2013, Judge Falk ordered Defendant to
provide Plaintiffs with the identities and contact information of all potential opt-in Plaintiffs and
reserved on ruling whether Defendant must provide Plaintiffs with discovery related to
comparators to Plaintiffs’ individual claims.
Defendant ified the instant Appeal on July 17, 2013 (“Def.’s Mot.,” ECF No. 74).
Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on July 31, 2013 (ECF No. 77). Defendant filed a Reply on August
12,2013 (ECF No. 80).
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which governs appeals from a
2
magistrate judge’s order on non-dispositive matters. “a district court may reverse a magistrate
judges determination of a non-dispositive motion only if it is clearly erroneous
or
contrary to
law.” Cooper HospiUniv, Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan, 183 F.R.D, 119, 127 (D.NJ, 1998); see also
Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee Hoisery, 177 F.R.D. 205, 213 (D.N.J. 1997). Because a
magistrate judge’s determination is entitled to great deference, it will only be reversed for an
abuse of discretion. Id. at 214;
see
also Schroeder v. I3oeing Comm’l Airplane Co., 123 F,R.D.
166, 169 (l).N.J. 1988) (stating that a magistrate “has wide discretion to make interstitial rulings
of law in the interests of justice and fairness, provided that the imjagistrate’s opinion is based on
clearly articulated principles”).
III.
l)IscussloN
Defendant asserts that Judge Falk’s order should be reversed because it is improper to
allow discovery of putative class members prior to conditional certification. To support this
proposition, Defendant relies on the same cases that it relied on in its Opposition to Plaintiffs
Motion to compel particulaily S’ymczyk v Genesis HealthCarc Coip 656 F 3d 189 194 (3d
,
Cir. 2011) and Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, 691 F.3d 527, 536 (3d Cir. 2012). However. .Tudge
Falk correctly stated the following: “It is true these cases emphasize that conditional certification
motions should be made promptly and on a limited record. However, neither case squarely
addresses the discovery issue” (ECF No. 71 at 3 n. I). Further, this District has stated that
“discovery aimed to gather information about this subject is relevant and the proper topic for an
interrogatory
even before the collective action is certified.” Stillman v. Staples. Inc., CIVA. 07-
849. 2007 WL 7261450.
at
*1 n.1 (D.N.J. July 30, 2007). Defendant’s remaining arguments are
3
equal lv unavailing, as Defendant has not shown that Judge Falk made a decision that was
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Rather, Defendant recites the same arguments that have
already been properly rejected by Judge Falk. Accordingly. Defendant’s Appeal is denied.
IV.
CoNcLusioN
For the reasons stated, it is the finding of this Court that Defendant’s Appeal is denied. An
appropriate order follows this Opinion.
Denn’
Date:
Orig.:
cc:
October
2013
Clerk
All Counsel of Record
Hon. James B. Clark, U.S.M.J.
File
,
4
.
Cavanaugh, U.S.
.
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?