REINIG et al v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A.

Filing 220

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)

Download PDF
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 HOWARD, 15cv1541 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Plaintiffs, v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A., Defendant. 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?