REINIG et al v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A.
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING Plaintiffs' Objections to the Verdict Form, doc. no. 217 and OVERRULING Defendant's Objections to the Verdict Form, doc. no. 218. The Parties shall amend their Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, in light of the Verdict Form and this ruling, by Friday, August 25, 2017. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 8/23/2017. (eet)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALEX REINIG, KEN GRITZ, BOB SODA,
MARY LOU GRAMESKY, PETER WILDER
SMITH, WILLIAM KINSELLA, DANIEL
KOLENDA, VALERIA DAL PINO,
AHMAD NAJI, ROBERT PEDERSON,
TERESA FRAGALE, and DAVID
RBS CITIZENS, N.A.,
MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: PARTIES’ OBJECTIONS TO THE VERDICT FORM
Plaintiffs and Defendant filed objections to the Verdict Form, doc. no. 201, which
contains a single question: “Did Plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
Citizens Bank had a policy or practice that caused mortgage loan officers to not report all of the
hours they worked (i.e., to work “off-the-clock”)?
Plaintiffs’ objection is that the Verdict Form “requires the Jury to find that [Defendant]
‘caused’ MLOs to work off-the-clock, rather than finding that Citizens ‘permitted’ and accepted
off-the-clock work.” Doc. No. 217. Defendant’s object that the Jury should find that the “policy
or practice” must be “companywide” and Defendant seeks to add that word to the question.
The Court finds that the word “caused” is proper and that the addition of “companywide”
is unnecessary and repetitious. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ Objections,
doc. no. 217, and OVERULES Defendant’s Objections, doc. no. 218.
The Parties shall amend their Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, in light of the Verdict
Form and this ruling, by Friday, August 25, 2017.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of August, 2017,
s/Arthur J. Schwab_____
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Court
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?