From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doe v. Coliseum, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 5, 2013
No. 2:13-cv-14492 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:13-cv-14492

11-05-2013

JANE DOES 1-3, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE COLISEUM, Inc., et al., Defendants.


Hon. Gerald E. Rosen


OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE MOTION

TO FILE CONSENT FORMS UNDER SEAL

In this putative class and collective action, Plaintiffs are current and former exotic dancers at adult nightclubs alleging minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, and under Michigan's Minimum Wage Law, M.C.L. § 408.382. Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs' request to file their FLSA "opt-in" consent forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) under seal. Plaintiffs wish to file these consent forms in order to toll the FLSA's statute of limitations. (Plfs' Mtn., Dkt. # 3, at 3-4).

First, a note about the status of Plaintiffs' Complaint. "It is a general rule that a complaint must state the names of the parties. Plaintiffs are permitted to proceed under pseudonyms only under certain circumstances that justify an exception to this rule." Citizens for a Strong Ohio v. Marsh, 123 F. App'x 630, 636 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) and Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004)). A Court may excuse parties from identifying themselves if their "privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings." Doe, 370 F.3d at 560. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint under a fictitious name and seek to proceed pseudonymously, (Plfs' Compl., Dkt. # 1, at ¶¶ 10-12), but did not move for leave to proceed in this manner. Moreover, Defendants have neither appeared, nor answered (or otherwise responded to) Plaintiffs' Complaint.

Plaintiffs use the term "anonymously," but note that they will disclose Plaintiffs' identities "privately in order to allow [Defendants] to assess and defend [against Plaintiffs'] claims." (Plfs' Compl., Dkt. # 1, at ¶ 12). The Court, therefore, assumes that Plaintiffs mean "pseudonymously," not "anonymously."

These concerns aside, because opting-in tolls the FLSA's statute of limitations, 29 U.S.C. § 256, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion without prejudice. Once Defendants appear and answer (or otherwise respond to) Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs are directed to file an appropriate motion with the Court concerning Plaintiffs' request to proceed pseudonymously. If the Court subsequently determines that Plaintiffs' privacy interests do not "substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings," the Court will unseal the consent forms.

For all of the foregoing reasons,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to File Consent Forms Under Seal [Dkt. # 3] is GRANTED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________

GERALD E. ROSEN

CHIEF, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on this date, November 5, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Julie Owens

Case Manager, 313-234-5135


Summaries of

Doe v. Coliseum, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 5, 2013
No. 2:13-cv-14492 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2013)
Case details for

Doe v. Coliseum, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JANE DOES 1-3, individually and on behalf of all others similarly…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Nov 5, 2013

Citations

No. 2:13-cv-14492 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2013)