Jones et al v. Elite Emergency Services, LLC et al

Filing 308

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs have not established fraud under Rule 60(b)(3), and their Motion for Relief (Doc. No. 264) is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Enforce Judgment (Doc. No. 303) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 7/11/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
WANDA FAYE JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ELITE EMERGENCY SERVICES,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:12-cv-00203
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Relief from Settlement, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). (Doc. No. 264.) On September 27, 2013, the parties
settled this Fair Labor Standards Act case and the Honorable John T. Nixon moved the case to the
administrative docket. (Doc. No. 131.) On March 28, 2014, Judge Nixon approved the settlement
agreement. (Doc. No. 139.) He did not dismiss the case, but kept it open to enforce the terms of
the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 140.) Two years later, and over Plaintiff’s objections, Judge
Nixon entered judgment. (Doc. No. 178.) Plaintiffs now move to vacate that judgment, arguing
that they agreed to settle the case based on Defendants’ fraud. (Doc. No. 264.)
On March 16, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion. During the hearing, the
parties engaged in extensive settlement talks, but Plaintiffs’ counsel averred to the Court that
attorney’s fees were the “sticking point.” (Doc. No. 298 at 120.) The Court therefore held in
abeyance the Rule 60 motion for sixty days so that the parties could engage in further settlement
discussions. (Doc. No. 297.) The parties were unable to settle the case. (Doc. No. 302.)
The Court may relieve a party from a final judgment in cases of “fraud (whether previously
called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” FED. R. CIV.

Case 3:12-cv-00203 Document 308 Filed 07/11/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7804

P. 60(b)(3). Fraud is the “knowing misrepresentation of a material fact, or concealment of the same
when there is a duty to disclose, done to induce another to act at his or her detriment.” Info-Hold,
Inc. v. Sound Merchandising, Inc., 538 F.3d 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing BLACKS LAW
DICTIONARY 685 (8th Ed. 2004)). If the moving party could have discovered the allegedlyfraudulent information during discovery, the Court cannot grant it relief from judgment under Rule
60(b)(3). Id. at 457.
Plaintiffs allege various acts of fraud. (Doc. No. 264 at 5-21.) However, Defendants should
have known much of the information prior to trial, such as how Elite Emergency Services, LLC,
paid its employees. (Doc. No. 264. at 5.) Defendants knew about the calendar regarding the number
of hours Plaintiffs worked prior to trial, and when Plaintiffs claimed that the calendar fell under
attorney-client privilege, Defendants should have filed a motion to compel under Rule 26. (Doc.
No. 264 at 6; Doc. No. 298 at 16.) Defendants should not have signed the settlement agreement
without the withheld documents about credit payments that Plaintiffs promised to disclose during
mediation but never did. (Doc. No. 264 at 11.) And the remainder of the allegations do not appear
to be relevant to a Fair Labor Standards Act claim. (Doc. No. 264 at 5-21.)
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs have not established fraud under Rule 60(b)(3), and
their Motion for Relief (Doc. No. 264) is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Judgment
(Doc. No. 303) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 3:12-cv-00203 Document 308 Filed 07/11/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 7805