Fields v. CareSource Management Services LLC

Filing 35

OPINION and ORDER denying the Plaintiff's 33 Renewed Motion for Court-Facilitated Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Sarah D. Morrison on 8/26/2024. (merc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BETTY JO FIELDS,
Plaintiff,

:
Case No. 2:24-cv-263
Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A.
Preston Deavers

v.
CARESOURCE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES LLC,

:

Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Betty Jo Fields’s Renewed Motion
for Court-Facilitated Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. (Renewed Mot., ECF No.
33.) This Court ruled on Ms. Fields’s first Motion for Court-Facilitated Notice (the
“Original Motion”) a mere ten days before the Renewed Motion was filed. (See Aug.
13 Order, ECF No. 31.) The Renewed Motion is thus properly construed as a motion
for reconsideration.
District courts may reconsider interlocutory orders prior to final judgment.
Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App’x 949, 959 (6th Cir.
2004); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “Traditionally, courts will find justification for
reconsidering interlocutory orders when there is (1) an intervening change of
controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.” Rodriguez, 89 F. App’x at 959. “New evidence” is
evidence that was “previously unavailable.” Ne. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. Brunner,

652 F.Supp.2d 871, 881 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (Marbley, J.). Reconsideration is not an
appropriate vehicle for merely disagreeing with a district court’s opinion, or for
expanding on earlier arguments. Nayyar v. Mt. Carmel Health Sys., No. 2:10-CV00135, 2014 WL 619394, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2014) (Marbley, J.); Doe v. Ohio
State Univ., 323 F. Supp. 3d 962, 965 (S.D. Ohio 2018) (Smith, J.).
Ms. Fields correctly notes that the Court denied her Original Motion because
CareSource offered undisputed evidence that Clinical Appeals Nurses’ job duties
differ based on their assigned teams, experience, and training. (Renewed Mot,
PAGEID # 313 (citing Aug. 13 Order, PAGEID # 279).) She uses the Renewed
Motion to offer evidence responsive to CareSource’s winning argument—namely,
declarations with more detailed descriptions of the putative plaintiffs’ day-to-day
job duties. But there is no indication that these declarations, or the facts they recite,
were previously unavailable to Ms. Fields. Thus, there is no “new evidence”
appropriate for review on a motion for reconsideration. The Renewed Motion is
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2