18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

262 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition respond to the questionnaire and to produce all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control within 30 days or be subject to dismissal with prejudice. The Court agreed that this aspect of the parties’ agreement should also be enforced. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motions to compel. Smith, et al. v. Professional Transportation, Inc., 5 F.4th 700 (7th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff filed a collective action alleging that Defendant, a company that transports railroad crews to and from their places of work, failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed her action "individually and on behalf of similarly- situated individuals" on December 26, 2013. Id . at 701. The District Court previously had granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification. Following discovery, Defendant moved to decertify the collective action on the basis that Plaintiff herself had not filed anything in addition to her complaint indicating that she herself wished to participate in the collective action. The District Court granted the motion. At the time of the District Court’s order, the two-year and the three-year statutes of limitations had run on Plaintiff’s claims. The District Court thereby determined that Plaintiff failed to allege timely individual claims, and it dismissed the action. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that it would not be appropriate to rule on whether the named Plaintiff must file a consent form to be an opt-in Plaintiff or if it was enough to indicate in the complaint that they wished to proceed collectively, since Plaintiff’s appeal only contested the District Court’s refusal to allow her individual action to proceed. The Seventh Circuit found that although Plaintiff captioned the two substantive sections of her complaint with the verbiage of "Collective Action Allegations" and "National Collective Action Pursuant to the FLSA," the very first paragraph of the complaint recited that Plaintiff was also proceeding in an individual capacity. Id . at 705. Therefore, the Seventh Circuit ruled that read in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the second amended complaint contained sufficient factual allegations related to her individual claims to put Defendant on notice that she intended to sue it both in an individual and a representative capacity. For these reasons, the Seventh Circuit held that the District Court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. (xix) Joint Employer, Employee Status, And Employer Status Issues In FLSA Collective Actions Ayala, et al. v. Nissan North America , Case No. 20-CV-1625 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2021). Plaintiff, a mechanic, filed a collective and class action alleging that Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA"). Defendant Nissan filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that individual dealerships were Plaintiff’s employer, and not Nissan. In addition, Nissan argued that Plaintiff failed to comply with pre-suit requirements of the FMWA, which required that Plaintiff notify his employer of his intent to file suit before initiating litigation. The Court reasoned that Plaintiff must comply with the pre-suit notice requirement of the FMWA, and thereby it dismissed the claim without prejudice so that Plaintiff could provide pre-suit notice. Plaintiff thereafter filed a first amended complaint and Nissan again moved to dismiss, arguing that it was not Plaintiff’s employer. The Court noted that the first amended complaint clearly alleged that Plaintiff was employed primarily by a Nissan dealership and that Nissan controlled the dealership, with the dealership having “little independent decision-making” and no control over compensation systems. Id . at 3. The Court found that at the motion to dismiss stage Plaintiff’s claims were sufficient to allege that Nissan was his joint employer. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Henao, et al. v. Parts Authority, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124382 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of delivery drivers, filed a class and collective action again Defendants alleging violation of the FLSA and nine states’ wage & hour laws. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs contended that delivery drivers were misclassified as independent contractors when they were actually employees of Defendants Parts Authority, Diligent or Does 21-40, which they alleged qualified as single or joint employers. Plaintiffs asserted that they were not paid minimum wage and that Defendants failed to reimburse them for costs associated with using their vehicles for deliveries. The Court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants Arizona Logistics and BBB Logistics because they were commonly owned and operated Texas corporations with their primary place of business in Houston, Texas, and all doing business as "Diligent Delivery Systems." Id. at *8. Plaintiffs contended that the Diligent Delivery entities provided staffing services to Parts Authority in separate states or geographic areas. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over Arizona Logistics and BBB Logistics. The Court reasoned