Samokovski et al v. Hillstone Healthcare Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER STAYING CASE: This matter is before the Court following a Preliminary Pretrial Conference with the parties. The parties have submitted their Rule 26(f) report, wherein they propose dates for discovery. The parties disagree on how to proceed with discovery. Plaintiffs believe that discovery should proceed on the definition and scope of the proposed collective class. Defendants contend that discovery should be stayed pending the Sixth Circuit's decision in Brooke Clark, et al. v. A&L Home Care and Training Center, LLC, Nos. 22-3101 & 22-3102 . Upon consideration of the parties' interests, judicial economy, and efficient litigation, the Court STAYS this matter pending the Sixth Circuit's resolution of Clarke . The parties are DIRECTED to notify the Court when the Sixth Circuit decides Clarke or if they reach a settlement. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 03/27/2023. (kaf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI

NADIA SAMOKOVSKI, et al., for
themselves and all others similarly
situated,

Case No. 1:22-cv-701
Judge Matthew W. McFarland

Plaintiffs,
V.

HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER STAYING CASE

This matter is before the Court following a Preliminary Pretrial Conference with
the parties. The parties have submitted their Rule 26(£) report, wherein they propose
dates for discovery.
The parties disagree on how to proceed with discovery. Plaintiffs believe that
discovery should proceed on the definition and scope of the proposed collective class.
Defendants contend that discovery should be stayed pending the Sixth Circuit's decision
in Brooke Clark, et al. v. A&L Home Care and Training Center, LLC, Nos. 22-3101 & 22-3102.

In those cases, the Circuit will decide issues relating to conditional certification in cases
arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Oral argument
was held on December 7, 2022. The Circuit's decision will directly impact how this Court
resolves certification and oversees this matter.
"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court

to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936).
Upon consideration of the parties' interests, judicial economy, and efficient litigation, the
Court STAYS this matter pending the Sixth Circuit's resolution of Clarke.
Furthermore, upon consideration of the relevant factors, tolling is appropriate.
The circumstances here-anticipating a higher court's clarification of how FLSA
collective actions ought to be certified- support tolling here. Putative members will lack
actual or constructive knowledge of the filing deadlines until notice, reasonably so, and
notice will necessarily be delayed because of the stay. Counsel for defendants were not
opposed to this approach. Struck v. PNC Bank N.A., 931 F. Supp. 2d 842, 846 (S.D. Ohio
2013). As such, the Court TOLLS the FLSA' s statute of limitations for putative collective
action members.
The parties are DIRECTED to notify the Court when the Sixth Circuit decides

Clarke or if they reach a settlement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
S~ UT ERN DISTRIC
~ O t.O I

.

.,J,,.- ~ '

,-

By: -- ~~
- - - - -- -- --- -JUDGE MATTHEW W. McF RLAND

2