Opinion
Civil No. 03-1166 (JRT/FLN).
July 9, 2003.
T. Joseph Snodgrass and Shawn Raiter, Larson King, St. Paul, MN, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey Whitney, Minneapolis, MN, Attorney for Defendant.
Douglas R. Hart, Travis M. Gemoets and Fred r. Puglisi, Sheperd Mullin Richter Hampton, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Irene Kramer ("Kramer") filed this action against her former employer, defendant NCS Pearson, Inc. ("NCS"), alleging that NCS violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and Minnesota state law by failing to pay her time-and-a-half for overtime. Kramer brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals. This matter is now before the Court on two motions by NCS: (1) a motion to stay this action pending developments in a related case in the Central District of California; and (2) a motion for a temporary restraining order to require Court approval of communications with potential class members.
Also before the Court is Kramer's motion for leave to file supplemental authorities regarding the motions to stay and for class certification. The Court will grant the motion.
BACKGROUND
NCS was awarded a contract to assist the Transportation Security Administration in the hiring of 45,000 federal security personnel to perform security screening and other functions at the nation's airports. Kramer worked for NCS as a full-time, temporary "Staffing Specialist" as part of this effort. Kramer claims that she worked more than forty hours per week and should have received time-and-a-half pay for this overtime work.Kramer filed this action on February 24, 2003. Kramer seeks certification of a class of similarly situated individuals who allege violations of the FLSA, as well as individuals alleging violations of various state overtime laws. Extremely similar actions are pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California before Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. See Carlin v. NCS Pearson, Inc., No. 02-CV-8857; Green v. NCS Pearson, Inc., No. 2:02-CV-9460. The Carlin action was the first of these cases to be filed; it was filed on October 21, 2002 in California state court and was later removed to federal court. The Carlin action alleges failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and California law, and seeks certification of two classes: a nationwide "opt-in" class under the FLSA and an "opt-out" California-only class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Lew of the California federal court has issued a stay in Green pending further developments in Carlin.
On April 23, 2003, Kramer and the plaintiffs in Green filed a motion for Transfer, Coordination, and/or Consolidation with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. This motion is still pending and a hearing is scheduled for July 24, 2003.
The parties in the Carlin action have reached a settlement agreement which has been approved by Judge Lew. A hearing to examine the fairness of the settlement is scheduled for mid-August of this year. Notices to this effect have been mailed out to potential class members, who have until mid-September of this year to opt in or opt out of their respective classes, after which Judge Lew will consider class certification. Kramer has intervened in the Carlin action, seeking to stay that court's consideration of settlement class certification pending the MDL Panel's decision.
On July 7, 2003, Judge Lew granted NCS's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). That order is nearly identical to the TRO that NCS now seeks from this Court. Judge Lew has scheduled a hearing for July 14, at which he will consider whether to continue the injunction for a longer period of time.
Judge Lew's order provides that Kramer and others are enjoined from:
1. Communicating with or sending written materials to California class members who have not opted out of the California class, because the California class has been certified by this Court and these members are represented by class counsel;
2. Communicating with or sending written materials to putative class members without prior approval from this Court of the content of said communication;
3. Sending any false misleading or incomplete information or notice to the putative class members;
4. Using false, misleading, or incomplete information in communicating with any [of] the putative class members;
5. Using false, misleading or incomplete information in order to solicit the representation of the putative class members;
6. Communicating with or sending written materials to represented potential class members i.e., former non-California resident NCS Pearson Staffing Specialists who have consented to join the instant action or the Green v. NCS Pearson, Inc. action, without prior written consent from that parties' [sic] counsel;
7. Communicating with or sending written materials to putative class members without prior approval from this Court of the content of said communication;
8. Using a list of former NCS Pearson Staffing Specialists in any way in violation of the above.Carlin v. NCS Pearson, Inc., No. 02-8857, slip op. at 3 (C.D. Calif. July 7, 2003).
ANALYSIS
I. Motion to Stay
This Court has the inherent power to stay proceedings of an action to control its docket, to conserve judicial resources, and to ensure that each matter is handled "with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. North Amer. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Lunde v. Helms, 898 F.2d 1343, 1345 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting that power to stay proceedings is incidental to court's power to manage its docket); Kemp v. Tyson Seafood Group, Inc., 19 F. Supp.2d 961, 964 (Minn. 1998).
NCS seeks to stay all aspects of the present action, including all discovery, pending Judge Lew's final rulings on the settlement agreement and class certification in Carlin. NCS's principal argument is that if this action goes forward, it is likely that this Court and Judge Lew will issue contradictory or divergent rulings on crucial matters. NCS urges that in order to preserve judicial economy and ensure the smooth progress of both cases, this case should pause while the first-filed Carlin case proceeds. This Court agrees. Although this action and Carlin are not identical in every way, they are near duplicates. If this Court proceeds with its case and both this Court and Judge Lew rule on similar issues, the parties would be left with little indication of which Court's rulings take precedence. This would encourage a wasteful cycle of petitions to this Court seeking redress from an order of Judge Lew and vice-versa.
The Court therefore finds it a wise use of judicial resources to stay this action pending resolution of settlement and class certification issues in Carlin. Kramer argues that this action should proceed and the Court should rule on its pending motion for partial summary judgment motion, but this would be inappropriate. Not only was Carlin filed four months before this action, but it has clearly progressed well beyond this case. Judge Lew has approved the settlement agreement, and the case is moving toward its final stages. For this Court to rule on matters that would impede or complicate Carlin now would waste the resources of both courts and all parties. Kramer's primary argument in opposing a stay is that the Carlin settlement is not favorable to plaintiffs. But that is not for this Court to consider. The Court understands that Kramer has not only intervened in Carlin, but has had the opportunity to present argument regarding the settlement agreement, and presumably will be a participant in Judge Lew's fairness hearing. Judge Lew's court, not this one, is the proper venue for Kramer's arguments about the merits of the settlement agreement.
The Court will therefore order that all proceedings in this action be stayed until Judge Lew has issued his final rulings on the settlement agreement and class certification in the Carlin action. The Court will also order both parties in this case to provide letter updates of the status of Carlin on September 1, 2003, and October 1, 2003.
II. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
NCS seeks a TRO that would require Court approval of all communications to putative class members and would prohibit plaintiff from communicating with putative class members who are already represented by counsel. As noted above, Judge Lew has already granted a temporary restraining order that is binding upon Kramer, and is substantially identical to the order that NCS seeks here. At oral argument, counsel for NCS conceded that in light of Judge Lew's order, its motion for a restraining order in this Court is unnecessary. The Court therefore finds that NCS's motion is moot and need not be considered at this time. Nevertheless, the Court admonishes the parties that they must both ensure that all communications with potential class members are truthful and accurate, and do not contain false, misleading, or incomplete information.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's Motion to Stay [Docket No. 12] is GRANTED as follows.
a. All proceedings in this action are stayed until the United States District Court for the Central District of California has issued its final rulings on the settlement agreement and class certification issues in its case Carlin, et al. v. NCS Pearson, Inc., No. 02-CV-8857.
b. Each party in this case shall provide the Court with a letter update of developments in the Carlin case on September 1, 2003 and October 1, 2003. Each letter update shall not exceed four pages in length.
2. Defendant's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [Docket No. 78] is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authorities [Docket No. 51] is GRANTED.