Villegas et al v. Royal Disposal & Recycle LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 23 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time, GRANTING 20 Opposed MOTION for Reconsideration, DENYING AS MOOT 24 Opposed MOTION to Expedite, GRANTING 22 Opposed MOTION to Expedite. The order granting conditional certif ication 19 is WITHDRAWN. Defendants may file a response to the plaintiffs motion for conditional certification on or before 11/22/2013. The plaintiffs may file a response within five days of the date of the response pursuant to the courts procedures. (Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CATALINO VILLEGAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GRACE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, LLC D /B/A
ROYAL DISPOSAL & RECYCLING , et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION H-13-320

O RDER
Pending before the court are (1) a motion for reconsideration filed by defendants Grace
Disposal Systems, LLC d/b/a Royal Disposal and Recycling, Royal Disposal and Recycle, LLC,
David Hanna, and Charles Gregory, III (collectively, “Defendants”) (Dkt. 20); (2) a motion to
expedite the motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 22); (3) a motion for extension of time to comply with
the court’s order regarding providing information about potential class members (Dkt. 23); and (4)
a motion to expedite the motion for an extension of time (Dkt. 24). After considering the motions
and applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motion to expedite the motion to reconsider
and the motion to reconsider should be GRANTED, and the other two motions should be DENIED
AS MOOT.
I. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a class of individuals
employed by Defendants as drivers and drivers’ helpers on October 25, 2013. Dkt. 19. The court
considered the plaintiffs’ motion as unopposed under Local Rule 7.4 because Defendants did not file
a response by the submission date. Dkt. 19; see S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4 (“Failure to respond will be taken
as a representation of no opposition.”). Defendants filed a motion to vacate the order or reconsider

the order on the same day the order was docketed. Dkt. 20. Defendants argue that the motion for
conditional certification was set for oral submission on December 18, 2013. Dkt. 20.
Local Rule 7.5, which is entitled “Oral Submission,” states that the parties may request oral
argument “as helpful to the Court.” S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.5.A. Additionally, “[w]hen oral presentation
is required by the Court, counsel will be notified by the clerk of a date for oral presentation
irrespective of any submission day.” S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.5B (emphasis added). The scheduling order
in this case contains a deadline for filing the motion, a deadline for discovery on the motion, and a
date for the hearing. Dkt. 17. It does not contain a deadline for submission of the written response
to the motion. See id. However, under the local rules, the deadline for written responses is twenty
days after the motion is filed. S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.3-7.4. If a response is not filed by the submission
day, it “will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” L.R. 7.4. If the court sets a hearing date,
it is “irrespective of any submission day”; thus, it does not mean that the opposing party can
disregard the twenty-day deadline for written submissions. In this case, the motion was submitted
to the judge twenty days after it was filed, and because no response was submitted, the court
considered the motion unopposed. The court expects oral presentations at scheduled hearings to
supplement the written submissions, not be made in lieu of written submissions.
However, since Defendants misunderstood the interplay between the Local Rules and the
scheduling order and are indeed opposed to conditional certification, the court will allow them
additional time to respond. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 20) is thus GRANTED.
II. CONCLUSION
The motion to expedite the motion to reconsider (Dkt. 22) is GRANTED. The motion to
reconsider (Dkt. 20) is also GRANTED. The order granting conditional certification (Dkt. 19) is
hereby WITHDRAWN. Defendants may file a response to the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional
2

certification on or before November 22, 2013. The plaintiffs may file a response within five days
of the date of the response pursuant to the court’s procedures.
The motion for an extension of time to comply with the order granting conditional
certification (Dkt. 23) and the motion to expedite that motion (Dkt. 24) are hereby DENIED AS
MOOT.
The hearing scheduled for December 18, 2013 is CANCELED. The court will set a hearing
after the motion is fully briefed if a hearing is necessary.
It is so ORDERED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on October 29, 2013.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge

3