VELASQUEZ MONTERROSA v. MI Casita Restaurante Mexicano et al
Filing
87
ORDER granting 76 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief and denying Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 9/29/2016. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for important deadlines and information. (Stouch, L.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:14-CV-448-BO
MOISES ENOT VELASQUEZMONTERROSA, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MI CASITA RESTAURANTS, a.k.a.
)
MI CASITA RESTAURANTE MEXICANO;
)
JM MACIAS, INC.; JFC LLC; MACIAS LLC;
)
MACIAS ENTERPRISE LLC; MC
)
MANAGEMENT LLC; MEXICAN FOODS
)
EXPRESS, INC.; PIRAMIDE MEXICAN
)
FOODS, INC.; VIA 216 NC LLC; JESUS
)
MACIAS; and JUAN MACIAS
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to (1) require defendants to
provide updated current employee contact information for those 17 putative class members who
are currently employed by defendant and returned Spanish language opt-out forms; (2) permit
plaintiff to contact those current employees to determine whether any of them were pressured or
coerced into sending back Spanish opt-out forms to withdraw their participation from this action;
(3) require defendants to confirm that the Court-authorized notice of this lawsuit was posted in
all of their restaurant locations pursuant to the Court’s April 27, 2016 Order; and (4) prohibit
defendants from misrepresenting the status of this lawsuit to putative class members. [DE 76].
Defendants filed a response in opposition and moving to strike the affidavit of Silvia Nelson.
[DE 80]. Both motions are fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated below,
plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief is granted and defendants’ motion to strike is
dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought suit for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)
and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (“NCWHA”). [DE 1]; 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.C.G.S.
§ 95-25.6. Plaintiff and putative plaintiffs/class members are former and current employees of
Mi Casita Restaurants, a chain of sixteen Mexican restaurants in the greater Fayetteville, North
Carolina, area. Defendant Juan Macias founded and owns Mi Casita. Juan Macias oversees the
operations of the chain, and each restaurant has a manager to oversee day-to-day operations.
Defendant Jesus Macias manages the Lillington and Angier, North Carolina, locations of Mi
Casita. Mi Casita employees a wide range of non-managerial and non-tipped employees as well,
including cooks, dishwashers, chip runners, drink runners, hosts and hostesses, and bussers.
Plaintiff moved for conditional certification under the FLSA as well as certification as a
class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. [DE 50]. On April 27, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff’s
motion to conditionally certify both the FLSA and NCWHA claims. [DE 65]. In addition, the
Court approved plaintiff’s proposed class notice (including Spanish and English language
versions of the attached opt-in and opt-out forms); ordered defendants to provide contact
information for all putative class members; and ordered defendants to post the court-approved
notice in each of their restaurants.
The Court approved a 60 day opt-in/opt-out period for putative plaintiff and class
members which expired on August 5, 2016. [DE 69]. On July 21, 2016, plaintiff filed the instant
motion for miscellaneous relief. [DE 76]. Plaintiff stated that, within two weeks of sending Court
approved notices to putative class members, he received 22 Spanish opt-out forms, 17 of which
2
are from current employees. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further avers that he has received threatening
communications regarding the lawsuit and suspects that defendants have been “actively coercing
and pressuring current employees to opt-out of the action.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff also submitted a
sworn affidavit from Silvia Nelson, a paralegal at class counsel’s law firm, who stated that she
received an anonymous phone call from one of defendants’ current employees stating that no
notices of the suit had been posted in any of defendant’s restaurants and that one restaurant
manager told the employee that this suit had been resolved. [DE 76-4]. Defendants opposed,
arguing that plaintiff’s motion was based on speculation and moving to strike of the affidavit of
Silvia Nelson. [DE 80].
DISCUSSION
Motion for miscellaneous relief
Plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief is granted. The FLSA was enacted to protect
“the rights of those who toil, of those who sacrifice a full measure of their freedom and talents to
the use and profit of others.” Benshoff v. City of Virginia Beach, 180 F.3d 136, 140 (4th Cir.
1999) (quoting Tenn. Coal, Iron & R.R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590, 597
(1944)). “[B]ecause the Act is remedial and humanitarian in purpose, it should be broadly
interpreted and applied to effectuate its goals.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted). Consequently, the Supreme Court, in upholding the mandate of Congress under the
terms of a § 216(b) collective action, held that courts must exercise a “managerial responsibility
to oversee the joinder of additional parties to assure that the task is accomplished in an efficient
and proper way.” Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170–71 (1989).
Additionally, this present suit was certified as a class action, and the Court is obligated to
exercise its equitable powers to manage this litigation. “Because of the potential for abuse [in
3
class actions], a district court has both the duty and the broad authority to exercise control over a
class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties.” Gulf
Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 100 (1981).
Allegations of coercion, intimidation, or improper communications are very serious and
require the Court, in its capacity as a neutral arbiter of this litigation, to pay careful attention and
ensure that, upon sufficient evidence, necessary action is taken to rectify improper conduct.
Here, the evidence presented is insufficient for the Court to make a finding of any such improper
conduct by either party. Nonetheless, the Court notes plaintiff’s concerns and finds that the
requested for relief will place no undue burden on the defendants and will help ensure this Court
that notice was effectuated efficiently and properly. Upon class certification, an attorney-client
relationship was created between class counsel and class members. See, e.g., Kleiner v. First Nat.
Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193, 1207 n.28 (11th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff’s counsel, under this
obligation to pursue the best interests of the class, shall be allowed to contact those class
members who returned Spanish opt-out forms to ensure that such a decision was made freely and
independently. The Court is also persuaded that further assurance of proper posting of notice at
each of defendants’ restaurants is merited under the circumstances.
Finally, the Court reserves the right, upon proper showing of misconduct, to take any
necessary and proper corrective action. This includes, but is not limited to, reopening the notice
period to ensure that class members receive actual notice and that any decision to opt-into the
FLSA collective action or opt-out of the NCWHA class action be made by those individuals
independently and free of undue pressure by either party. See, e.g., De Asencio v. Tyson Foods,
Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 313 (3d Cir. 2003), as amended (Nov. 14, 2003) (directing the district court
to “reopen the FLSA opt-in period for a reasonable period of time to allow additional notice to
4
all eligible current and former employees”); Robinson-Smith v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 424 F.
Supp. 2d 117, 123 (D.D.C. 2006); Impervious Paint Indus., Inc. v. Ashland Oil, 508 F. Supp.
720, 722–23 (W.D. Ky. 1981). While such a showing of misconduct has not been presently
made, the Court notes that the prerogative of the FLSA, combined with the Court’s equitable
powers to manage class actions, would allow the Court to enforce remedial measures should
future circumstances merit such an action.
Motion to strike
Defendants’ motion to strike the affidavit of Silvia Nelson under Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure is denied. Rule 56(e) provides that affidavits supporting and opposing
summary judgment “shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be
admissible in evidence, and shall affirmatively show that the affiant is competent to testify about
the matters stated therein.” Plaintiff’s motion is not one supporting or opposing summary
judgment and thus is unaffected by Rule 56. Additionally, according to Rule 12(f), the Court
may “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or
scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Motions to strike “are generally viewed with disfavor
because striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy and because it is often sought by the
movant simply as a dilatory tactic” Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347
(4th Cir. 2001) (internal citation removed). The plain text of Rule 7(a), which defines
“pleadings” under the Rules, does not include within its definition motions such as this.
Plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief is not a “pleading” within the meaning of the Rules
and a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is inapplicable. See Dalenko v. Stephens, 917 F. Supp. 2d 535,
541 (E.D.N.C. 2013).
5
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion, it is hereby ordered that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for miscellaneous relief [DE 76] is GRANTED, and defendant's
defendants'
motion to strike [DE 80] is DENIED.
2. Defendants shall provide, within 15 days of the filing of this order, updated current
employee contact information for those 17 current employees who returned Spanish optout forms.
3. Plaintiff's counsel may briefly contact the 17 current employees who returned Spanish
opt-out forms to determine if their decision was made freely and independently.
4. Defendants shall submit to the Court, within 30 days of the filing of this order, sworn
affidavits from the managers of each of the store restaurant locations covered by the class
confirming that the Court-authorized notice of this lawsuit was posted in each of those
locations pursuant to the Court's April 27, 2016 order. [DE 65].
5. All parties are ordered to decline from misrepresenting the status of this lawsuit to
putative class members.
6. Any Spanish language opt-in or opt-out forms returned to class counsel by putative class
members are acceptable and shall be filed with the Court upon receipt.
SO ORDERED, this
J.!!_ day of September, 2016.
~W-¥
TERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?