Morgan v. Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, LLC
ORDER. Defendant is ORDERED to file its brief on or before 4/5/2017. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file his brief on or before April 19, 2017. The briefs may not exceed 7 pages.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
March 22, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-00129
Before the Court is Defendant’s “Motion for Summary Judgment on Release
Issue” (D.E. 14). In that motion, Defendant seeks to apply the common law doctrine of
tender-back to support its argument that Plaintiff has ratified his participation in the
court-approved settlement in the Juarez case (Juarez v. Yellowjacket Oilfield Services,
LLC, 2:15-cv-329 (S.D. Tex. April 25, 2016)) by failing to tender the amount Plaintiff
received in connection with that settlement. D.E. 14, p. 10 (citing Wiley v. Mitchell, 106
Fed. Appx. 517, 521-22 (8th Cir. 2004) (addressing state law claim of fraud in connection
with a real estate transaction)).
Plaintiff’s response did not address this argument or any argument of ratification.
D.E. 15. Defendant re-urged it in its reply. D.E. 18, p. 8. In support, it cited two cases
applying the doctrine to state law claims,1 two cases involving class action issues under
Smith v. Stericycle, Inc., 538 F. Supp. 2d 960, 968 (W.D. Tex. 2008) (addressing a state law declaratory judgment
claim related to contract rights) and Paradowski v. Tomball Texas Hosp. Co., LLC, No. CIV.A. H-13-1621, 2013
WL 4459558, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2013) (addressing state law fraudulent inducement claims).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,2 and one FLSA case that also involved the fact that
union representatives had authority to bind the plaintiffs to the settlement.3
This Court’s independent research has revealed a line of cases in which the
concepts of tender back and ratification are inapplicable to federal remedial statutes, such
as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Older Workers Benefits Protection
Act. See e.g., Long v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 105 F.3d 1529, 1539-40 & n.17 (3d Cir.
1997); Oberg v. Allied Van Lines, 11 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1993) (citing Hogue v.
Southern R. Co., 390 U.S. 516 (1968) (Federal Employers’ Liability Act claim)). Cases
do, however, sometimes distinguish FLSA principles from the release and waiver issues
in those cases. The Court asks whether tender back and ratification apply under the
particular circumstances presented by the FLSA.
To ensure a fair opportunity to be heard on this issue, the parties are ORDERED to
brief this issue, addressing in part Fifth Circuit treatment of FLSA release parameters.
Defendant is ORDERED to file its brief on or before April 5, 2017 and Plaintiff is
ORDERED to file his brief on or before April 19, 2017. The briefs may not exceed 7
ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2017.
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Penson v. Terminal Transp. Co., 634 F.2d 989, 994 (5th Cir. 1981) (regarding a claim of racial discrimination and
a consent decree) and Lipnicki v. Meritage Homes Corp., No. 3:10-CV-605, 2014 WL 923524, at *16 (S.D. Tex.
Feb. 13, 2014) (also relying on Fifth Circuit precedent permitting private settlements of FLSA cases).
Martin v. Spring Break '83 Prods., L.L.C., 688 F.3d 247, 256 (5th Cir. 2012).
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?