Kendell et al v. Phoenix Home Health Care Services Ltd. et al
ORDER denying 97 Motion for Permanent Injunction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 10/12/17. (jlk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
KELLEE KENDELL, et al.,
Civil Action 2:15-cv-3009
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
PHOENIX HOME HEALTH CARE
SERVICE LTD., et al.,
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunction.
(ECF No. 97.) For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.
On November 17, 2015, Plaintiffs brought this action claiming breach of contract and
unjust enrichment for alleged failure to pay certain compensation. (ECF No. 1.) On May 13,
2016, Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff’s approval of her time
sheets over seven years equitably estops her from asserting breach of contract claims with
respect to her pay. (ECF No. 25 at 8-11.) After this Court held Defendant’s Motion in abeyance
for supplementation, Defendant renewed its Motion for Summary Judgment on November 17,
2016. (ECF No. 84.) This Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on March
29, 2017. (ECF No. 88.) On April 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal to the U.S.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where this case remains pending. (ECF No. 90.) On October 12,
2017, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion. (ECF No. 97.)
In their Motion, Plaintiffs claim, “Defendant issued an ultimatum to Plaintiffs requiring
the reversal of their patient referral position in order to obtain compensation otherwise
definitively earned by and consequently owed to Plaintiffs.” (ECF No. 97. At 3.) According to
Plaintiffs, two emails comprise Defendant’s “ultimatum.” They are as follows:
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2017 3:14 AM
Please confirm your payroll only if you consider yourself working as a patient
care coordinator for Phoenix Home Health Care.
Date: October 9, 2017 at 2:57:53 PM EDT
Subject: Youo [sic] haven’t confirm your payroll yet
We are still waiting for you to confirm the payroll before we pay you. The cut off
time is noon Monday 10/9/17 for payroll. We will extend the waiting time till
noon Tuesday 10/10/17 this time. Your pay will be on hold if we don’t receive
the reply by noon tomorrow 10/10/17.
(Id. at 9.) According to Plaintiffs, Defendant’s request places them upon the horns of a dilemma.
Plaintiffs maintain that accepting Defendant’s characterization of Defendant’s pay and status by
confirming the payroll would prejudice their position in this litigation, but maintaining their
litigation position would prevent Defendant from receiving her earned compensation. (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiffs, therefore, request this Court to enjoin Defendant from withholding the subject
“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers
jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects
of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58
(1982); see also United States v. Garcia–Robles, 562 F.3d 763, 767–68 (6th Cir. 2009). This
transfer of power, however, does not effect a total divestiture of jurisdiction from the district
court: it retains jurisdiction to enforce its judgment, City of Cookeville v. Upper Cumberland
Elec. Membership Corp., 484 F.3d 380, 394 (6th Cir. 2007), to proceed with matters that will aid
the appellate process, Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219, 1221 (6th Cir. 1981), and to adjudicate
matters unrelated to the issues on appeal, Weaver v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 970 F.2d 1523, 1528–29
(6th Cir. 1992).
Although this Court does retain jurisdiction over this matter in order to enforce its
judgment, Plaintiffs, here, do not seek to enforce the Court’s judgment.1 The Court granted
Defendant summary judgment in this matter, in part, on the basis that Plaintiff’s approval of her
timesheets for seven years equitably estopped her from making subsequent breach of contract
claims with respect to those payments. (ECF No. 88 at 5-6.) An injunction barring Defendant
from further reliance on Plaintiff’s prior representations would not serve to enforce the Court’s
judgment, but rather undermine it directly. City of Cookeville, 484 F.3d at 394. Furthermore,
exercising jurisdiction over the instant Motion would neither aid the appellate process, nor
adjudicate matters unrelated to the issues on appeal, as no unadjudicated issues remain in this
matter. Cochran, 651 F.2d at 1221; Weaver, 970 F.2d at 1528–29. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’
Motion is not well-taken.
For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunction is DENIED. (ECF
Similarly, Plaintiffs do not seek a stay of an injunction issued by this Court. Although
Plaintiffs reference it in their Motion, Appellate Rule 8 does not apply here.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 12, 2017
/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?