Makaneole v. Solarworld Industries America, Inc. et al

Filing 191

OPINION & ORDER: Makaneole's constructive Request/Motion 189 for partial stay of these proceedings is Denied. Signed on 2/2/18 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MICHAEL MAKANEOLE, Plaintiff, 3:14-CV-1528-PK OPINION AND ORDER v. SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES AMERICA, INC., SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES AMERICA, LP, SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES SERVICES, LLC, SOLARWORLD POWER PROJECTS, INC., and RANDSTAD US, LP, Defendants. PAPAK, Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Michael Makaneole brought this putative class action against defendants Solarworld Industries America, Inc., SolarWorld Industries America, LP, SolarWorld Industries Services, LLC, SolarWorld Power Projects, Inc. (collectively with Solarworld Industries America, Inc., SolarWorld Industries America, LP, and SolarWorld Industries Services, LLC, "SolarWorld" or the "SolarWorld defendants"), Randstad US, LP ("Randstad") 1, and Kelly 1 Makaneole inaccurately identified Randstad as "Randstad Professionals US, LP" in his complaint as originally filed, and notwithstanding that Randstad has noted the en-or in virtually every document it has since filed with the court, Makaneole continues to so misidentify Randstad in his current pleading. Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Services, Inc. ("Kelly" or "KSI"), in the Multnomah County Circuit Court on August 26, 2014. Defendant Randstad removed Makaneole's action to this court effective September 24, 2014. Subsequent to removal, Makaneole amended his complaint in this court effective April 6, 2015. By and through his amended complaint, Makaneole alleges that the SolarWorld defendants are in the business of manufacturing and selling photovoltaic products, and that defendants Kelly and Randstad are both in the business of providing temporary workers to employers in need of short-term staff. Makaneole alleges that he was employed first by Kelly, then by Randstad, and then by SolarWorld, and while serially employed by the three employers perfo1med services on behalf of SolarWorld at a SolarWorld facility in Oregon. It is Makaneole's allegation that during all three periods of employment, SolarWorld engaged in a practice of programming an electronic time-keeping system to deduct minutes from his hours worked prior to reporting them to payroll for purposes of computing his compensation, and that Kelly and Randstad used the hours reported to them by SolarWorld following such deduction in calculating his compensation during the periods when he worked for those employers; it is fmiher Makaneole's position that each of the three employers treated all of their similarly situated employees' hours worked in the same fashion during approximately the same time period. Arising out of that practice, Makaneole alleges all defendants' liability for violation of Oregon's Or. Rev. Stat. 652.120 and 653.010 by failing to pay all wages owed, for violation of Oregon's Or. Rev. Stat. 652.120 and 653.010 by failing to pay ove1iime wages owed, and for violation of Oregon's Or. Rev. Stat. 652.140 by failing to pay all wages owed at the te1mination of employment. Makaneole seeks damages for unpaid wages in an unspecified amount, as well as award of his attorney fees and costs. This comi has original federal subject-matter jurisdiction Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER over Makaneole's putative class action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332(d)(2). On September 2, 2016, these chambers recommended (inter alia) that the coutt issue summary judgment in Kelly's favor as to all of Makaneole's claims against it, and in Randstad's favor as to Makaneole's Section 652.120 claim against it for failure to pay ove1time wages owed. On Januaiy 17, 2017, Judge Brown adopted those recommendations without modification. Judge Brown entered final judgment as to Makaneole's claims against Kelly on Febrnaiy 28, 2017. On January 4, 2018, Makaneole advised the coutt that he had reached a settlement in principle with Randstad. In connection with such notice, Makaneole additionally purp01ied to provide notice to the court that, in consequence ofMakaneole's settlement in principle with Randstad, the currently pending motion for class ce1tification is "presently" moot as to Randstad "subject to coutt approval" of the proposed settlement. On that basis, Makaneole purported to notify the court that "any rnling as to the pending motion for class certification should be stayed and defened as to Randstad, as such a ruling would be contra1y to the parties' settlement effo1ts and the cutTent settlement posture of the action with respect to Randstad." I construe such purp01ted notice as a motion to stay further proceedings in connection with the cun-ently pending motion for class certification to the extent it addresses Makaneole's claims alleged against Randstad. SolarWorld opposes Makaneole's motion so construed, arguing that either no stay should be imposed or that the stay should have the effect of deferring proceedings in connection with the pending motion for class certification as to all defendants equally. Now before the coutt is Makaneole's constrnctive motion (#189) for stay of further proceedings in connection with the cun-ently pending motion for class certification to the extent it addresses Makaneole's claims alleged against Randstad. I have considered the constrnctive Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER motion, oral argument on behalf of the parties, and all of the pleadings and papers on file. For the reasons set forth below, Makaneole's constructive motion is denied. LEGAL STANDARD "A district court has inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and eff01t for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." ClvfAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) ("The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket."). When considering whether to exercise their discretion to stay proceedings, the district courts should consider "the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a paity may suffer in being required to go fo1ward, alld the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay." ClviAX, 300 F.2d at 268, citing Landis v. N Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936). ANALYSIS Although Makaneole takes the position that this court should not decide the currently pending motion for class certification to the extent it addresses Makaneole's claims alleged against Randstad, he offers no argument (i) that he, the absent putative class members, or Randstad would suffer any hardship or inequity in the event the court were to decide the pending motion for class ce1tification in its entirety, other than that such a ruling would be "contrary" to the parties' settlement efforts and the "cmTent settlement posture" of the action, or (ii) that failure to effect the requested stay would complicate any issues of proof or questions of law. For their part, the SolarWorld defendants take the position that if a stay were entered as to the pending Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER motion for class certification to the extent it addresses Makaneole's claims alleged against Randstad only, and not to the extent it addresses Makaneole's claims against SolarWorld, they would potentially suffer prejudice in the event the proposed settlement with Randstad were not approved, in that under that circumstance it is possible that different filing deadlines might thereafter apply to SolarWorld on the one hand and to Randstad on the other. Although I find SolarWorld's objections to the requested stay unpersuasive - case deadlines could be trivially reconciled by comt order in the event the stay were granted as to proceedings against Randstad only and the proposed settlement subsequently disapproved - I am similarly not persuaded that good grounds exist for issuing the requested stay in the first instance. Makaneole specifically reports that they have reached agreement as to "all of the major te1ms" of their proposed settlement, and that thir paitial agreement has been memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding and Term Sheet that expressly provides that it is independently enforceable (pending comt approval) even in the event the patties were unable to reach agreement as to the remaining te1ms of their proposed settlement. As such, this court's order granting or denying class treatment of Makaneole's claims alleged against Randstad would not interfere with the parties' still-ongoing settlement negotiations. Moreover, if the stay is denied and the class certification motion subsequently resolved prior to approval or disapproval of the proposed settlement, the result of ultimate approval of the settlement would be to moot the resolution of the class certification motion, to the prejudice of no party, whereas the result of ultimate disapproval of the settlement would be that the patties continued to litigate, again to the prejudice of no pmty. Because no good grounds appear to exist for staying any portion of these proceedings at Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER this time, Makaneole's constructive motion for stay is denied, and SolarWorld's objections to the proposed stay are accordingly disregarded as moot. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Makaneole's constrnctive motion (#189) for partial stay of these proceedings is denied. Dated this 2nd day ofFebrnaiy, 2018.(~. \ 6liil' Honorable Paul Papal( United States Magistrate Judge Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER

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?