Acosta, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Medical Staffing of America, LLC et al
Filing
411
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 331 MOTION for Relief in Connection with Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit PX-21. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 12/7/23. (jhie, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division
JULIE A. SU,
ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Case No. 2:18-cv-226
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:19-cv-475
V.
MEDICAL STAFFING OF AMERICA, LLC, d/b/a
STEADFAST MEDICAL STAFFING, and LISA
PITTS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Medical Staffing of America d/b/a as Steadfast Medical Staffing and
business owner Lisa Pitts (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for Relief in Connection with the
United States Department of Labor (“Plaintiff’ or “DOL”) Trial Exhibit PX-21 and Opposition to
Plaintiffs March 11 “Updated Back Wage Computations.” ECF No. 331 (“Defs.’ Mot.”). Plaintiff
filed its response in opposition. ECF No. 335 (“Pl.’s Resp.”). Defendants filed their reply. ECF
No. 337 (“Defs.’ Reply”). Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the Court finds this matter
ripe for judicial determination. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court will only
address PX-21.' For the reasons set forth below. Defendants’ Motion for Relief regarding PX-21
is DENIED. Furthermore, the Court finds a hearing on Defendants’ Motion unnecessary.
I.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
On May 2, 2018, Plaintiff initiated an enforcement action against Defendants, alleging
several Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) violations. ECF No. 1. On January 14,2022, following
The Court will address Plaintiffs updated back wage computations in a separate order.
1
a bench trial, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, finding Defendants liable for
violating the FLSA for failing to pay overtime and maintain records. ECF Nos. 324, 325. In its
Memorandum and Opinion, the Court enjoined Defendants from committing further FLSA
violations and accepted Plaintiffs back wage calculations and methodology, finding that
Defendants owed $3,619,716.49 for overtime violations from August 18, 2015 to .lune 27, 2021
and an equal number of liquidated damages, totaling $7,229,432.98. ECF No. 324 (the ‘‘Court's
Order” or “Order”). In that same Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to provide an updated
calculation of additional back pay and liquidated damages for any continuing FLSA violations
from June 27, 2021, to January 13, 2022. Id.
On March 11,2022, Plaintiff submitted updated back wage calculations for $9,075,285.66,
an amount that includes $1,835,852.68 in added back wages and liquidated damages. ECF No.
329. On March 13, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Relief in Connection with Plaintiff s Trial
Exhibit PX-21,^ under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b), 54(b) and 60(a)
(b), and
opposition to Plaintiffs March 11 “Updated Back Wage Computations,” claiming that Plaintiffs
backpay and liquidated damage calculations included several computational errors. On March 14,
2022, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to contest the final judgment. ECF No. 332. On March
28, 2022, Plaintiff responded in opposition stating the Court rendered a final decision and
Defendants' Motion is untimely. On April 4, 2022, Defendants replied in support of their Motion
stating PX-21 contains multiple errors. On April 8, 2022, the Court deferred ruling on Defendants’
Motion for Relief in the interest of judicial economy. ECF No. 340. On May 31,2023, the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings.
^ Trial Exhibit PX-21 is a backpay table that includes approximately 10,000 entries the DOL created using data
taken from Defendants’ payroll, invoices, and worker timesheets, which were produced in discovery and are part of
the trial record.
2
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b)
Under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP’O 52(b). it states ''[o]n a party’s motion
filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings—or make
additional findings—and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may accompany a
motion for a new trial under Rule 59.” As courts have
motion is to correct manifest errors of law or fact.”
noted. "|a]mong the purposes of such a
Morrow Corp. r. Harleysville Mul. Ins. Co.,
110 F. Supp. 2d 441, 445 (E.D. Va. 2000). Furthermore, ‘*or in limited circumstances, to present
newly discovered evidence, but not to relitigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to secure a
rehearing on the merits.” U.S. v. Mathis, No. 6:06-815, 2008 WL 906554, *1 (D.S.C., 2008).
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)
FRCP 54(b) provides:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim,
counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are
involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer
than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just
reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all
the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be
revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and
all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
“Rule 54(b)’s approach involves broader flexibility to revise interlocutory orders before
final judgment as the litigation develops and new facts or arguments come to light.” U.S. Tobacco
Coop. Inc.
Big S. Wholesale of Virginia, LLC, 899 F.3d 236, 256 (4lh Cir. 2018) (quoting
Carlson V. Bos. Sci. Corp., 856 F.3d 320, 325 (4th Cir. 2017)). “The Court has distilled the grounds
for a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration to (1) an intervening change in the law, (2) new
evidence that was not previously available, or (3) correction ol' a clear error of law or to prevent
3
manifest injustice.” Van Diizer Lang v. Patients Out of Time, No. 3:20-CV-00055, 2023 WL
7191175, at *1 (W.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2023) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Courts have
the responsibility to reach the correct judgment under the law. Am. Canoe Ass ’n v. Murphy Farms,
Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 515 (4th Cir. 2003). “[Ejvery order short of a final decree is subject to
reopening at the discretion of the district judge.” Moses H. Cone Mem. Hasp. v. Mercury Const.
Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12 (1983). A motion for reconsideration is wasteful when it reiterates previous
arguments. Univ. ofVa. Patent Found, v. Gen. Elec. Co., 755 F.Supp. 2d 738, 744 (W.D. Va.
2011). “Put differently, aggrieved parties may not put a finer point on their old arguments and
dicker about matters decided adversely to them.” Van Duzer Lang, 2023 WL 7191175 at *1
(quoting Evans v. 'Trinity Indus., Inc., 148 F.Supp. 3d 542, 546 (E.D. Va. 2015)). A party that does
not present its strongest case in the first instance generally has no right to raise it in a motion to
reconsider. See United States v. Duke Energy Corp., 218 F.R.D. 468, 474 (M.D.N.C. 2003); see
also U.S. Tobacco Coop. Inc., 899 F.3d at 257 (stating litigants who failed to raise the issue with
the court should not be permitted without good reason to raise it later).
C. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) - (b)
FRCP 60(a) provides “[t]he court may correct... a mistake .. .whenever one is found in a
judgment, order, or other part of the record.” The court may correct a mistake, but after filing an
appeal a “mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.” Id. Rule 60(a) “applies
when the court intended one thing but by merely clerical mistake or oversight did another.” Rhodes
V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 548 F. App'x 857, 859 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted). “The relevant test... is whether the change affects substantive rights of the parties
and is therefore beyond the scope of Rule 60(a) or is instead a clerical error, a copying or
computational mistake, which is correctable under the Rule.” Rhodes, 548 F. App'x at 859 (4th
4
Cir. 2013) (quoting Pifzer Inc. v. Uprichard, 422 F.3d 124, 130 (3d Cir. 2005)).
FRCP Rule 60(b) provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a parly or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3)
fraud
(whether
previously
called
intrinsic
or
extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on
an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
■'[W]hen the party is blameless, his attorney’s negligence qualifies as a ‘mistake’ or as
‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 60(b)(1). Moreover, both cases require a movant to act in a timely
fashion, to avoid unfair prejudice to the non-movant, and to proffer a meritorious defense [][] to
obtain relief.” Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Fodor Contracting Corp., 843 F.2d 808, 811
(4th Cir. 1988). Rule 60(b)(6) allows a court to relieve a party from final judgment for "any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Although Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch-all
provision.
motion under 60(b)(6) may not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.”
Murchison v. Astriie, 466 F. App'x 225, 229 (4th Cir. 2012). "Extraordinary circumstances are
those that create a substantial danger that the underlying judgment was unjust.” Id. (alterations in
original) (internal quotations and citations removed). A party must raise a Rule 60(b) motion
within a reasonable time and not more than a year after entering the judgment for reasons one
through three. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
m.
DISCUSSION
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b)
Defendants argue that they are entitled to relief under FRCP 52(b) to obtain an accurate
5
calculation of the back pay Defendants owe to their employees because PX-21 calculations are
inaccurate. Dels.’ Mot. at 10-11. Additionally, Defendants argue that the Court has not entered
judgment and has not imposed damages. Dels.’ Reply at 14. Further, the Court’s order is
interlocutory regarding the issue of damages, leaving the Court empowered to grant post-trial
relief Id. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ Motion is untimely because Defendants filed the motion
58 days after final judgment, and the Clerk closed the case. PI.’s Resp. 8.
FRCP 52(b) states that a party must file its motion no later than 28 days after the court
enters judgment. Here, Defendants waited 58 days to file this motion. Further, Defendants raised
this motion to relitigate issues that were decided at trial. Defendants tailed to object or challenge
PX-21 before and during trial. The Court repeatedly informed Defendants to review Plaintiffs
computations, however, Defendants failed to do so. PL’s Resp. at 10; Court’s Order. Additionally,
the FLSA required Defendants to keep and maintain proper records, which they failed to do.
Defendants should have raised this issue at trial instead
of waiting 58 days until after the Court
entered judgment to argue the issue of the computations. See Perry v. Clarke, No. 1:17CV664
(LO/IDD), 2019 WL 13249499, at *1 (E.D. Va. May 2, 2019) (stating petitioner’s motion under
Rule 52(b) seeks to relitigate issues that were previously rejected). The Court’s judgment was
final, and the Clerk closed the case. See Court’s Order; ECF No. 325. See In re Grand Jury 2021
Subpoenas, No. 22-1654, 2023 WL 8103935, at *6(4thCir. Nov. 22, 2023) (stating final decisions
end the litigation and leave nothing for the court to decide). The only thing left for the Court to
decide is the amount of back wages owed, which is a ministerial task. See Rutter v. Oakw’ood
Living Centers of Virginia, Inc., 282 Va. 4, 13 (2011). Even if the Court’s decision was not final,
Defendants’ arguments point out no errors of law or fact that would manifest injustice because
Defendants decided to sit at trial and not object to PX-21. Thus, Defendants’ Motion under Rule
6
52(b) is untimely and unavailing to Defendants.
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)
Defendants argue that they are entitled to relief under Rule 54(b) because the Court has not
resolved the final back pay computations and liquidated damages, making the Court’s Order
interlocutory. Defs.’ Mot. at 8. Additionally, Defendants argue that PX-21 computations are wrong
and unjust to impose on Defendants. Id. at 15. Plaintiff argues that the Court entered final judgment
in favor of Plaintiff and directed Plaintiff to provide an update on back wages, which is a
ministerial task. Pl.’s Resp. at 4. Therefore, Plaintiff concludes that the Court’s Order is final and
not interlocutory. Id.
FRCP 54(b) governs interlocutory orders and gives the court discretion to revise its order
before entry of judgment. In this case, the Court entered final judgment and resolved all issues
leaving only the amount of damages owed to Defendants employees. See Rutter, 282 Va. at 13.
Rule 54(b) is inapplicable in this case. The Court issued its Order, finding Defendants liable for
violating the FLSA. In that Order, the Court adopted Plaintiffs calculations and awarded damages
to Plaintiff Further, the Court directed Plaintiff to provide an update regarding back wages.
However, even if the Court’s Order is interlocutory, Plaintiff cannot get relief under 54(b).
Defendants have not shown that there has been a change in law, clear error manifesting injustice,
or new evidence that was not previously available. See Van Diizer Lang, 2023 WL 7191175 at *1.
Rather, Defendants rely on PX-21 containing alleged computation errors as a basis for this Motion.
However, Defendants had ample time before and during the trial to challenge Plaintiffs PX-21
computations well before the Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Defendants also did not introduce
evidence at trial to challenge Plaintiffs computations. This Motion is wasteful as Defendants had
ample time to address these issues before the Court entered judgment. See Duke Energy Corp.,
1
218 F.R.D. at 474. Under Rule 54(b), Defendants cannot relitigate PX-21 and the amount of
damages owed since the Court's decision was adverse to them. See Van Duzer Lang, 2023 WL
7191175 at *1 (“Put differently, aggrieved parties may not put a finer point on their old arguments
and dicker about matters decided adversely to them.”) (internal citation and quotations omitted).
Thus, Defendants' Motion under Rule 54(b) is improper and denied.
C. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) - (b)
Defendants argue that they are entitled to relief under Rule 60(a) because Plaintiffs PX21 computations are inaccurate. Defs.’ Mot. at 9-10. Further, PX-21 is complete with errors and
fails to specify the overtime pay the employees received. Defs.' Reply at 17. Defendants believe
that under Rule 60(a), the Court should allow the correction of the alleged clerical errors. Id.
However, Plaintiff argues that Defendants' requested relief is not clerical. PL's Resp. at 13.
Instead, Plaintiff argues that Defendants seek to have the Court relitigate issues that Defendants
failed to object to at trial. Id.
FRCP 60(a) slates, “[t]he court may correct... a mistake . . .whenever one is found in a
judgment, order, or other part of the record.” In this case, there are no clerical mistakes. The Court
informed Defendants multiple times before the trial to review PX-21. It is completely absurd to
have Plaintiff recompute alleged errors in PX-21 that should have been addressed long before the
Court entered judgment and long before the trial. See e.g., Anderson v. Ml. Clemens Pottery, 328
U.S. 680, 687-88 (1946) (stating employer cannot complain about the inaccuracy of damages had
the employer maintained the records). The Court warned Defendants about their questionable
litigation decisions before and during the trial and their failure to cooperate with Plaintiff See
Court’s Order. Additionally, the Court warned Defendants at trial that they would not be allowed
to present evidence of damages after trial. Defendants now raise these issues regarding PX-21 58
days after entry of judgment, 185 days after trial, and more than 300 days after the close of
discovery, and the Court finds this to be grossly unreasonable. Pl.’s Resp. at 11. Defendants waived
their right to argue for clerical mistake under 60(a) because they failed to make any arguments
about PX-21 at trial. See United States v, Olano, 507 U.S. 725. 733 (1993).
Defendants raise similar arguments under Rule 60(b)(1). In this case, as the Court
mentioned above, Defendants’ litigation errors are not mistakes under Rule 60(b)(1). Defendants
failed to raise the issue of damages at trial. The Court determined the amount of damages owed
based on evidence Plaintiff presented at trial. See Mt. Clemens, 328 U.S. at 687 (stating employee
or Secretary can submit sufficient evidence from which violations of the FLSA and the amount of
an award may be reasonably inferred if employer fails to maintain records in accordance with
FLSA).
Defendants also argue that under Rule 60(b)(6), they will suffer enormous harm paying
more than 60% in damages. Defs.’ Mot. at 10-11. Furthermore, Defendants argue that correcting
PX-21 computations will not impose any unfair prejudice on Plaintiff given the significance of the
errors. Id. at 11. However, Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to show that the Court’s
determination on damages was a mistake. Pl.’s Resp. at 15. Additionally, Defendants had multiple
opportunities to introduce their evidence if they chose to do so. Id. at 16. Lastly, Plaintiff argues
that Defendants cannot demonstrate extraordinary circumstances because they failed to counter
Plaintiffs evidence.
Here, Defendants cannot use their failure to present evidence to counter Plaintiffs damages
calculations to argue for “extraordinary circumstances” under Rule 60(b)(6). Defendants were
afforded a fair trial and had the opportunity to review the pleadings, discovery, and evidence
presented at trial. Defendants had every civil procedure and evidentiary tool available to them to
9
use during the litigation process. It was Defendants own neglect to review the computations as the
Court instructed that allowed the admission of PX-21
without objection. Thus, Defendants* Motion
under Rule 60(a) - (b) is meritless and denied.
D. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59
The Court believes Defendants are raising their issue regarding PX-21 under Rule 59. Rule
59 states that a court may grant a new trial for any reason “for which a rehearing has heretofore
been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(b). The party must file a
motion for a new trial no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). Also,
a party may seek to amend a judgment no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). “Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which
should be used sparingly.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Natl Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396. 403 (4th Cir.
1998). Both Defendants and Plaintiff raise the same arguments as above. In this case, a potential
motion under Rule 59 is time-barred because Defendants
filed the instant Motion 58 days after the
Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Thus, a potential motion under Rule 59 is timebarred.
E. Defendants Waived Right to Attack PX-21
Assuming Defendants stated valid reasons for relief under Rule 52(b), 54(b), 59(a) - (b),
and 60(a) - (b). Defendants waived their right to attack PX-21. A waiver is the “intentional
relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 733. Further, when a party
fails to present an argument, it is deemed waived. See e.g.. Nystrom v. Trex Co., No. CIV.A.
2:01CV905, 2006 WL 208591, at *4 (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2006), qffd, 200 F. App'x 987 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (finding plaintiff failed to present substantive arguments on the issue deeming it waived).
In this case. Defendants waived any procedural right to attack PX-21 because they failed
10
to make any arguments regarding the back wage computations before or during the trial. The Court
informed Defendants that back wage computations would be based on the record and not anything
presented after trial. See Trial Transcript, Day 3, 469-70. ECF No. 314. Despite the Court's
warning, Defendants did not present evidence to counter PX-21 nor object to PX-21 admission.
Thus, Defendants waived arguments regarding PX-21 in this Motion.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above. Defendants' Motion is DENIED. ECF No. 331. The Court
DIRECTS the Clerk to provide a copy of this Order to the parlies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
{
Norfolk, Virginia
A
Raymond A. Ja6k^on
United States District Judge
December ^ , 2023
11
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?