Rodgers et al v. Spar Business Services, Inc. et al

Filing 83

OPINION AND ORDER denying 72 Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Nationwide Conditional Collective Action Certification and Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(h).(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

June 22, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
MACEO RODGERS, ET AL.
V.
SPAR BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.,
ET AL.

§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. G-14-055

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court by referral1 is the Renewed Motion for Nationwide Conditional
Collective Action Certification of the merchandisers who have worked for the Defendants
in the last three years. Having reviewed the file and considered the Parties’ submissions
the Court now issues this Opinion and Order.
For very practical reasons, the Motion will be denied. This Court, in part, limited
the geographical scope of the permitted Notice in anticipation of what has actually
occurred. About 60 claimants joined this action during the opt-in period. From the
limited discovery completed so far it appears that SPAR, as Plaintiffs suspected, treated
all the merchandisers it utilized in the same manner. Consequently, there is now before
the Court a sufficient class of merchandisers from which to determine whether SPAR has
violated the FLSA. In the opinion of this Court, the Parties should now concentrate
discovery on whether decertification is appropriate.
1

That issue can be adequately

Although the referral requested a Report and Recommendation, the Motion is a nondispositive matter which this Court can consider and determine.

addressed within the deadlines of the current Docket Control Order and its resolution will
help advance this litigation. On the other hand, an expansion of the conditional class at
this juncture will only stall this case for several months without any likelihood the ultimate
resolution of this central issue will be any different. If decertification is denied, the
District Court can then make a more meaningful decision about whether a broader
conditional class should be considered or the case should proceed to trial, but there is no
good reason to unnecessarily and unproductively delay the progress of this case at this
time.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that “Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Nationwide
Conditional Collective Action Certification and Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29
U.S.C. § 216(h)” (Instrument no. 72) is DENIED.
DONE at Galveston, Texas, this

22nd

2

day of June, 2016.