Lawrence v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.

Filing 39

Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification (Related doc # 19 ) is denied as moot. Plaintiff may refile Motion for Conditional Certification based on the operative First Amended Complaint in accordance with the description of the collective class contained therein. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 4/26/2013. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JASMINE LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.1:12CV2600
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jasmine Lawrence’s Motion for
Conditional Class Certification, Court Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and Expedited Discovery (ECF # 19). The Court denies
Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification as moot.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an in-home health aide and seeks conditional
certification for an opt-in class defined as: “All hourly in-home health care workers employed
by Maxim Healthcare Services at any time in the past three years.” Plaintiff’s Motion for
Conditional Certification describes in-home health care workers as including nurses,
therapists, medical social workers and home health aides.

Plaintiff filed her Motion for Conditional Certification on January 18, 2013. On
February 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint, which added allegations that
Plaintiff was required to work “off the clock.” In addition, the First Amended Complaint
states Plaintiff brings the claims on behalf of employees “who are or were employed to
provide domestic services to its clients at any time in the last three years, worked over 40
hours per week and were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a work week.” This
description of the defined FLSA collective class differs sharply from the defined FLSA
collective class sought in the Motion for Conditional Certification which predates the First
Amended Complaint.
Therefore, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification as
it contains a description of the FLSA collective class that differs from the defined collective
class as described in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff may refile its Motion for
Conditional Certification based on the operative First Amended Complaint in accordance with
the description of the collective class contained therein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Dated: April 26, 2013