Slack et al v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC

Filing 88

ORDER denying 84 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8 TROY SLACK, et al.,
9

Plaintiffs,

10

CASE NO. C11-5843 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

11 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF
ARIZONA, LLC,
12
Defendant.
13
14
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Swift Transportation Co. of
15
Arizona, LLC’s (“Swift”) motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting class
16
certification (Dkt. 84). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in
17
opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for
18
the reasons stated herein.
19
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
20
On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs Troy Slack, Eric Dublinski, Richard Erickson, Sean P.
21
Forney, Jacob Grismer, Timothy Helmick, Henry M. Ledesma, Scott Praye, Gary H.
22

ORDER - 1

1 Roberts, and Dennis Stuber (“Plaintiffs”) filed a motion for class certification. Dkt. 40.
2 On August 2, 2013, Slack responded. Dkt. 57. On August 23, 2013, Plaintiffs replied.
3 Dkt. 82. On November 20, 2013, the Court granted the motion and certified a smaller,
4 more defined class than Plaintiffs originally proposed. Dkt. 83.
5

On December 4, 2013, Swift filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 84. On

6 December 9, 2013, the Court requested a response. Dkt. 85. On January 3, 2013,
7 Plaintiffs responded. Dkt. 86. On January 10, 2013, Swift replied. Dkt. 87.
8
9

II. DISCUSSION
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides

10 as follows:
11
12

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily
deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the
prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not
have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.

13
Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).
14
In this case, Swift argues that they were prejudiced by a violation of due process
15
but stops short of asserting that the Court committed a manifest error of law. The Court
16
engaged in a rigorous analysis of Rule 23’s requirements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
17
Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). When Swift showed that Plaintiffs’ proposed class
18
was unworkable, the Court was faced with two decisions: (1) deny the motion to certify
19
the proposed class or (2) certify a more defined class in accordance with the substantive
20
law of Washington. The Court concluded that there was a class of Plaintiffs that fell
21
“squarely” within the Washington Supreme Court decision of Bostain v. Food Express,
22

ORDER - 2

1 Inc., 159 Wn.2d 700 (2007). The Court is unaware of any authority that holds that the
2 Court abused its discretion by accepting Swift’s arguments that the proposed class was
3 unworkable, yet concluding that a smaller, more defined class was workable and met
4 Rule 23’s requirements. In cases where the law was not so clear, the Court may have
5 committed error. But, in this case, the law of the state clearly applies to the drivers
6 within the certified class. Therefore, the Court finds that it did not commit a manifest
7 error of law.
8

Swift argues that, given the opportunity to collect and present evidence, it would

9 show that the certified class is also unworkable. This case is over two years old and
10 Swift has had sufficient time to collect evidence. Moreover, the Court based its decision
11 on declarations that are in the record and cites were provided in the order. If Swift has a
12 basis to narrow or attack the scope of the class, then it may do so through a Rule
13 23(c)(1)(C) motion. However, the Court is not persuaded that the certification order
14 should be vacated in its entirety.
15
16

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Swift’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.

17 84) is DENIED.
18

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2014.

A

19
20

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 3