Gaines v. Midwest Sporting Goods Distributors Inc et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting in part 20 Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification, to Approve Notice and Consent Forms, for Authorization to Mail Notice and Consent Forms to Putative Plaintiffs and for Defendants to Identify Putative Plaintiffs. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 1/4/16. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TYLER GAINES,

)
)
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself )
and others similarly situated, )
)
vs.
)
)
MIDWEST SPORTING GOODS
)
DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; MIDWEST
)
RACQUETBALL AND SPORTING
)
GOOD DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; and
)
JOHN H. LASSITER,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-15-414-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Conditional Class Certification, to Approve Notice and
Consent Forms, for Authorization to Mail Notice and Consent Forms to Putative Plaintiffs
and for Defendants to Identify Putative Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 20). According to Plaintiff, he
was not paid proper wages and as a result is entitled to recover damages under the FLSA and
the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act.*
Plaintiff filed the present action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”) and now requests the Court to conditionally certify a collective
action against the Defendants. To determine whether or not a collective action should
proceed, the standard requires only “substantial allegations that the putative class members

*

At this time, Plaintiff is not seeking certification of the state law claims, but only
the FLSA claims. Thus, at this stage the traditional standards applicable to class actions set
forth by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 do not apply.

were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan.” Thiessen v. Gen. Elec.
Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1102 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). The Court is not evaluating the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, but only whether or not
there exists other putative plaintiffs who may assert similar claims. See Adamson v. Bowen,
855 F.2d 668, 676 (10tgh Cir. 1998). Defendants object to Plaintiff’s request for conditional
certification, arguing that Plaintiff’s claim is precluded because he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies; then because Plaintiff is not a proper Plaintiff, Defendants argue
that the collective action is also precluded.
Fatal to Defendants’ argument is the fact that Defendants have offered no authority
or argument demonstrating a requirement that Plaintiff comply with the Oklahoma
Administrative Procedures Act before pursuing a claim in federal court based on a federal
law. Rather, Defendants point to the fact that Plaintiff filed a letter with the Oklahoma
Department of Labor making a wage claim and then leap to the conclusion that this step
created a requirement on Plaintiff to exhaust all administrative remedies available. However,
Defendants fail to offer any authority demonstrating a requirement to exhaust prior to
pursuing federal law based claims.
Defendants alternatively suggest that Plaintiff’s claims are precluded under the
doctrine of claim preclusion. Under the clearly established elements for that doctrine, it does
not apply. Claim preclusion is an affirmative defense, thus, Defendants bear the burden of
pleading and proving the claim. See Fed. Ins. Co. v. United States, 618 F.2d 661, 662-63
(10th Cir. 1980). At a minimum, before claim preclusion can exist, there must have been a
2

full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action. See Dodge v. Cotter Corp.,
203 F.3d 1190, 1198 (10th Cir. 2000). As Plaintiff notes and supports with evidence, the
claim before the Oklahoma Labor Department was dismissed and Plaintiff given leave to
pursue his claims in court. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims are
subject to the claim preclusion doctrine. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request
for conditional certification of this matter as a collective action should be granted.
Plaintiff requests the Court approve the Notice attached to his Motion. Defendants
raise a number of objections to the proposed Notice. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s
proposal directs the Notice to all current and former employees of Defendants. Defendants
argue that this overbroad. According to Defendants, the Notice should be sent only to
outside salespersons, as those are the only individuals who are similarly situated to Plaintiff.
The Court disagrees. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had a policy or plan to make unlawful
deductions from employees’ wages. At this stage, it would be improper to limit the
employees until a better understanding can be reached of the policy, if any, behind the
allegedly improper deductions. Accordingly, this objection will be overruled.
Defendants next object to the third paragraph of the second major section of the
Notice, which states, “This notice is to advise you of your legal rights to unpaid wages and
liquidated damages that you may have in connection with this lawsuit.” Defendants argue
this sentence should be revised to state that the Notice is to advise of a legal right to pursue
any claim to unpaid wages and liquidated damages as a result of wage deductions in
connection with a lawsuit. Plaintiff objects to this language, arguing that it could imply to
3

a putative plaintiff that they would need to pursue a separate lawsuit rather than to opt in.
After review, the Court finds no meaningful difference between the language proposed by
either party and therefore will proceed with the language proposed by Plaintiff.
Next, Defendants object to the description of the litigation paragraph, arguing it is
unclear regarding the summary of Plaintiff’s allegations and the description of Defendants’
position is inadequate. Plaintiff has proposed a modification to correct the error in the
description of the litigation and agrees that Defendants’ denial could be modified.
Defendants object to the last sentence regarding the Court’s position on the litigation
and Plaintiff agrees that that sentence can be changed to, “The Court has taken no position
on the merits of the case.”
Finally, Defendants object to the portion of the Notice outlining the description of the
class, as it is not limited to only outside salespersons. For the reasons noted above, the
description as it exists in Plaintiff’s Notice is sufficient. The Notice proposed by Plaintiff
will be approved, subject to the changes noted herein.
Defendants offer no objection to Plaintiff’s request for production of identity, address,
and year of birth of all the sales associates who worked during any period between November
13, 2012, and the present, and therefore that request will be granted.
As set forth more fully herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Class Certification,
to Approve Notice and Consent Forms, for Authorization to Mail Notice and Consent Forms
to Putative Plaintiffs and for Defendants to Identify Putative Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 20) is
GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall begin sending the Notices and the Opt-In forms to the
4

putative class. Defendants shall produce the requested employee information within 60 days
of the dates of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2016.

5