Michael v. Bloomberg, L.P.
Filing
434
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER......Defendants March 20, 2018 motion to decertify plaintiffs state-law claims is denied as untimely and on the merits. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/22/2018) (gr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------- X
:
ERIC MICHAEL ROSEMAN, ALEXANDER LEE,
:
and WILLIAM VAN VLEET, individually and:
on behalf of others similarly situated,:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
BLOOMBERG L.P.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
-------------------------------------- X
14cv2657 (DLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
DENISE COTE, District Judge:
On March 20, 2018, defendant moved to decertify plaintiffs’
state-law claims relating to liability and damages issues or, in
the alternative, decertify state-law claims relating to damages
issues alone.
Plaintiffs responded on March 22, requesting that
the Court deny the defendant’s motion as untimely.
For the
following reasons, the plaintiffs’ request is granted.
Defendant’s motion is denied.
On September 21, 2017, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion
for certification of a New York class.
Roseman v. Bloomberg,
14cv2657 (DLC), 2017 WL 4217150 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2107)
(“September 21 Opinion”).
On September 25, it also granted
certification of a California class.
Roseman v. Bloomberg,
14cv2657 (DLC), 2017 WL 4280602 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2017).
Defendants’ motion to “decertify” the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) collective action was denied on September 27.
Roseman
v. Bloomberg, 14cv2657 (DLC), ECF No. 309.
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 59 is “strict.”
Analytical Surveys, Inc. v.
Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation
omitted).
“[R]econsideration will generally be denied unless
the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that
the court overlooked.”
Id. (citation omitted).
“A motion for
reconsideration should be granted only when the defendant
identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.”
Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil
of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d
Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
It is “not a vehicle for
relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories,
securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second
bite at the apple.”
Analytical Surveys, 684 F.3d at 52
(citation omitted).
The decision to grant or deny the motion
for reconsideration is within “the sound discretion of the
district court.”
Aczel v. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir.
2009) (citation omitted).
Here, reconsideration is inappropriate because the Court
has already addressed the arguments made in the defendant’s
March 20 submissions, and the motion is untimely.
2
See Local
Civil Rule 6.3 (“[A] notice of motion for reconsideration or
reargument of a court order determining a motion shall be served
within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Court’s
determination of the original motion.”).
The question of
determining liability on a class-wide basis was squarely decided
in the September 21 Opinion.
With respect to damages, when
weighing Rule 23(b)’s predominance requirement in favor of
certifying the class, the Court noted that “common issues may
predominate when liability can be determined on a class-wide
basis, even when there are some individualized damage issues.”
Roseman, 2017 WL 4217150, at *8 (citation omitted).
Even in
recognizing that “individual testimony” might be necessary to
determine damages for off-site hours worked, “the plaintiffs'
showing of predominance” was not defeated.
Id.
In further support of decertification, Bloomberg argues
that a determination of whether the “fluctuating work week”
(“FWW”) standard will apply is an individualized one because a
mutual agreement between an employer and employee must be
demonstrated.
This argument would allow employers to avoid
class certification any time the FWW standard were invoked.
As
demonstrated in the plaintiffs’ motion for certification,
Analytics Representatives are hired in groups, undergoing
training and classes together.
ECF No. 179, Ex. 13.
Given that
“[a]ll class members have the same title and essential job
3
function, have identical initial job training, have been
evaluated using the same performance metrics, have been paid on
the same basis, and have been subject to the same overtime
policy,” Roseman, 2017 WL 4217150, at *4, any alleged agreement
with respect to the FWW can be proven on a class-wide basis.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s March 20, 2018 motion to decertify plaintiffs’
state-law claims is denied as untimely and on the merits.
Dated:
New York, New York
March 22, 2018
__________________________________
DENISE COTE
United States District Judge
4
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?