Goplin, Brooks v. WeConnect, Inc.

Filing 80

ORDER on proposed class notice; plaintiff's version is approved subject to modifications set forth in the order. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 12/17/2018. (jls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

BROOKS GOPLIN,
individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
17-cv-773-jdp

WECONNECT, INC.,
Defendant.
In a December 6, 2018 order, this court conditionally certified a class consisting of
current and former WeConnect technicians, subject to a caveat requiring the parties to address
the contested arbitration issues in the decertification and Rule 23 class certification briefing.
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer about adding language to the proposed notice
that flagged the possibility that some class members may be bound by enforceable arbitration
agreements. The parties were unable to agree on a joint proposal and instead submitted
competing draft notices. Dkt. 78 and Dkt. 79. For the reasons explained below, the court will
approve a version of the notice that incorporates aspects from both versions.
There are two discrepancies between the versions of the notice submitted by the parties.
First is the placement of the language addressing arbitration. Goplin includes it in the “Your
Right To Participate In This Suit” section, whereas WeConnect has substantively identical
language both in that section and in the “Effect of Joining This Lawsuit” section. Neither party
addresses this discrepancy in placement. But the court agrees with WeConnect that the
language about arbitration appropriately belongs in both sections; the prospect that an opt-in
class member with an enforceable agreement may have his claims dismissed as a result is one

potential “effect” of joining this suit. So the court will adopt WeConnect’s proposed language
concerning that issue.
Second, WeConnect objects to the inclusion of “Alternative Entertainment, Inc.” in the
opening paragraph of the notice. It acknowledges that the court has already rejected its
argument that Goplin should be precluded from taking the position that Alternative
Entertainment, Inc. (AEI) and WeConnect are the same company. Dkt. 77, at 11. Nonetheless,
WeConnect argues that the court’s order “did not indicate that the notice should reference
AEI.” Dkt. 78-1, at 1. But that is only because the parties did not raise the issue in the
conditional certification briefing, so there was no need to discuss it. Class members who started
at the company before the name change will receive the notice, so the notice’s reference to AEI
is appropriate.
If WeConnect has not already done so, it must provide Goplin with a list, in electronic
importable format, of all home entertainment specialists and/or field service technicians
employed between December 6, 2015 and December 6, 2018. This list should include
employee names, mailing addresses, dates of employment, and employee identification
number. To facilitate prompt notice, WeConnect should do so no later than December 21,
2018. Goplin may have until January 4, 2019, to send notice to the collective. Goplin should
notify the court once it has sent the notice so that the court can re-set Rule 23 class certification
and decertification deadlines and arrange for a new scheduling conference with Magistrate
Judge Crocker.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Brooks Goplin’s version of the proposed court-facilitated class notice,
Dkt. 79, is approved, subject to the modifications set forth above concerning the
placement of the arbitration language.
2. Defendant WeConnect, Inc. shall produce to plaintiff Brooks Goplin, by December
21, 2018, a list, in electronic importable format, of all home entertainment
specialists and/or field service technicians in employed between December 6, 2015
and December 6, 2018, including their name, mailing address, dates of employment,
and employee identification number.
3. Goplin may have until January 4, 2019, to send notice to the collective. To facilitate
the re-setting of deadlines, Goplin must notify the court once notice has issued.
Entered December 17, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3