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)
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?