Acosta, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Medical Staffing of America, LLC et al

Filing 149

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER- The Secretary's Objection 135 is DENIED. See Memorandum Opinion and Order for details. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 09/10/2019. Copies distributed as directed 09/11/2019. (bboy, )

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division

gpp ' 1 -T"
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORFOLK. VA

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,
SECRETARY OF LABOR,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Plaintiff,

y

CIVIL ACTION NO.2:18-cv-226

MEDICAL STAFFING OF AMERICA,LLC,
D/B/A STEADFAST MEDICAL STAFFING,
AND LISA ANN PITTS
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
1. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Before the Court is R. Alexander Acosta's ("Secretary") objection to the Magistrate

Judge's order granting Defendant's Motion to Strike the Secretary's Revised Schedule A
document attached to the Secretary's Complaint. EOF No. 133.

The Secretary's Complaint was filed on May 2,2018. ECF No. 1. The Complaint states

that Defendants may be liable to current and former employees unknown to the Secretary at the
time the Complaint was filed and for ongoing violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

("FLSA"). Id. at 4 H (2). The Secretary's Revised Schedule A was filed on May 13,2019 and
increases the number of potential beneficiaries of the Secretary's suit from 84 to 389 to reflect

newly discovered potential violations ofthe FLSA by the Defendants. ECF No. 133. The
Secretary's Revised Schedule A does not alter the Complaint itself. ECF No. 135 at 1—2.

The Magistrate Judge granted the Defendant's Motion to Strike(ECF No. 118)on May
24,2019, with a docket entry("docket entry")finding the Secretary's Revised Schedule A
occurred after the issuance ofthe Final Pretrial Order. ECF No. 133. Additionally,the

Magistrate Judge found the Secretary's Revised Schedule A to constitute an amendment to his
Complaint,thereby requiring leave of court or Defendant's consent consistent with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(2). ECF No. 133.
II. LEGAL STANDARD

As a nondispositive matter, the review of a magistrate's order is properly govemed by the

"clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard ofreview."See Tafas v. Dudas,530 F. Supp. 2d
786, 792(E.D. Va. 2008). Only if a magistrate judge's decision is "clearly erroneous or contrary

to law" may a districtjudge modify or set aside any portion ofthe decision. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a);
see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). An order is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to

support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed. United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,333 U.S. 364,395(1948).

Where a magistrate judge's ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion or is contrary to law, district
courts must vacate it in order to give effect to the plain language of28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). In
re Outsidewall Tire Litigation,267 F.R.D. 466,470(E.D. Va. 2010).
III. DISCUSSION

In his objection to the Magistrate Judge's docket entry, the Secretary argues the Revised
Schedule A does not constitute an amendment to its Complaint, thereby circumventing the

requirements for the amendment of pleadings in Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. ECF
No. 135. In opposition to the Secretary's objection. Defendants claim the Magistrate Judge's

docket entry subjecting the Revised Schedule A to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)

was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. ECF No. 136 at 5—7. In addition, Defendants
contend the inclusion ofthe Revised Schedule A would be improper because a Final Pretrial
Order has been issued and Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e) precludes modification ofthe docket entry
absent a finding of manifest injustice. Id. at 7-16.

A. Objection to the Exclusion of Revised Schedule A Under Fed. R.Civ.P.15

In support of his objection to the Magistrate Judge's docket entry, the Secretary relies on
U.S. Dep't ofLabor v. Fire & Safety Investigation Consulting Servs. No. 1:17CV25,2018 WL

2065941 (N.D. W.Va. May 3,2018). In Fire & Safety, the Secretary's complaint alleged back
wages and liquidated damages may be due for certain present and future employees unknown at
the time the complaint was filed. Id. at *3. The Secretary was permitted to file a Revised
Schedule A without amending its complaint because the allegations in the complaint were not
limited to the employees listed in the original Schedule A.

Like the complaint at issue in Fire Safety, the allegations in the Secretary's Complaint
were not confined to those employees specifically listed in the original Schedule A. In addition

to the employees listed in the original Schedule A,the Complaint seeks additional amounts of
back wages and liquidated damages for continuing violations ofthe FLSA and for violations
presently unknown to the Secretary. ECF No. 1 at 4^(2).

Defendants oppose the Secretary's objection, arguing the Revised Schedule A obligates
the Secretary to seek leave ofcourt, as an amendment to its Complaint. In support of its

opposition to the Secretary's objection. Defendants rely on a series ofcases in which the
Secretary sought to file a Revised Schedule A (or analogous attachment) which added
beneficiaries who were not named in the original Schedule A accompanying the complaint. ECF

No. 136 at 5-7. Although the Secretary sought leave of court to file a Revised Schedule A in

each ofthe cases the Defendants cite, in no case was leave ofcourt cast as a mandatory step .
required to file a Revised Schedule A. Further, the Secretary was permitted to file a Revised

Schedule A in each case the Defendants cite, with one court characterizing the addition of
employees to a Revised Schedule A as a "purely technical matter." Reich v. Great Lakes

Collection Bureau, 176 F.R.D. 81-85(W.D.N.Y. June 27, 1997). Therefore, as a general matter,
the Secretary should be permitted to submit a Revised Schedule A without amending his
complaint.
B. Revised Schedule A and the Pretrial Order

The Secretary contends that the Magistrate Judge did not mention the final pretrial order
or the purported effect of the Revised Schedule A on the final pretrial order in his docket entry.
Id. at 16. However,a plain reading ofthe Magistrate Judge's docket entry contradicts this
argument. The Magistrate Judge's docket entry states that the Secretary's Revised Schedule A

was submitted "after the final pretrial conference and the issuance ofa final pretrial order in
which [the Secretary] made no reference to any expansion of potential beneficiaries." ECF No.
133. Therefore, the Court must determine whether the issuance ofthe Final Pretrial Order

precludes the Secretary's submission ofa Revised Schedule A.

The Secretary argues that the Magistrate Judge's docket entry is contrary to law because
the issuance of a final pretrial order is not a factor in determining whether he should be permitted
to file a Revised Schedule A. ECF 137 at 2. A pretrial order, which measures the dimensions of

the lawsuit, may be modified only to prevent manifest injustice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). Rule
16(e)is mandatory, and generally that order supersedes the pleadings and sets the issues for trial.
Bryant Real Estate, Inc. v. Toll Bros., Inc., 106 F. Appx 182,187(4th Cir. 2004). In the instant
case, a Final Pretrial Order, which supersedes the pleadings, had been issued before the

Secretary's filing ofthe Revised Schedule A and did not include a reference to present and future
employees unknown to the Secretary at the time of the Complaint. EOF No. 84. The final

pretrial order limited the triable issues to the employees listed in the original Sehedule A on file

at the time ofits issuance. Id. The Secretary could have included present and future employees
unknown to the Secretary in the Final Pretrial Order. However, because the pretrial order does
not reference present and future employees unknown to the Secretary, this Court cannot conclude

the Magistrate Judge's Order to be "clearly erroneous or contrary to law."
IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Secretary's objection is DENIED.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to provide a copy ofthis Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Norfolk, Virginia
September[q ,2019

Raymond A.

United States Distria Judge