In re Geico Telephone Claim Representatives Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Wage & Hour Litigation

223 F. Supp. 3d 1334, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172577, 2016 WL 7221105
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
DecidedDecember 7, 2016
DocketMDL No. 2746
StatusPublished

This text of 223 F. Supp. 3d 1334 (In re Geico Telephone Claim Representatives Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Wage & Hour Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Geico Telephone Claim Representatives Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Wage & Hour Litigation, 223 F. Supp. 3d 1334, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172577, 2016 WL 7221105 (jpml 2016).

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Sarah S. Vance, Chair

Before the Panel: Defendant Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Eastern District of New York. This litigation consists of 149 actions pending in two districts, as listed on Schedule A. All plaintiffs oppose centralization of these actions.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions share allegations that GEICO fails to pay its telephone claim representative (TCR) employees wages for overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. But the disparate procedural posture of these cases suggests that centralization would not result in an efficient outcome for this litigation. The 148 actions pending in the Eastern District of New York stem from the decertification of a collective action that has been pending since 2009. See Harper v. GEICO, C.A. No. 2:09-2254 (E.D.N.Y.). The parties to that action engaged in common discovery and pretrial motions practice, and a trial in Harper was scheduled to begin in September 2016. That action, along with the 148 actions that stem from it, now has been stayed pending mediation among all the Eastern District of New York plaintiffs and GEICO. In contrast, the Eastern District of Virginia Clinton action is in its nascent stages.

[1335]*1335GEICO argues that a decision on certification of a collective action in the Eastern District of Virginia Clinton action could conflict with the decertification ruling in the Harper action. But Clinton proposes a much narrower collective class of TCRs limited to GEICO’s .Virginia Beach, Virginia location, than the decertified Harper action, which proposed a collective class of all TCRs employed by GEICO nationwide. Further, while Clinton will require pretrial motion practice regarding certification of a collective class, the individual actions in the Eastern District of New York will not, further increasing the procedural disparity among the actions. Given the advanced state of proceedings in those individual actions, that all actions are before two judges, and that there are only two groups of plaintiffs’ counsel in all actions, informal coordination of the new Eastern.District of Virginia action with the actions pending in the Eastern District of New York is feasible and a preferable alternative to centralization. See In re: Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Wage & Hour Litig., 829 F.Supp.2d 1376, 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2011).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2746 — IN RE: GEICO TELEPHONE CLAIM REPRESENTATIVES FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION

Eastern District of New York

ALGEA v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01787
AULOV v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01788
SCHOLL v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01807
TENNENT v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01809
BEHM v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01816
BERNARD v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01817
BROUSSARD v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01827
DAVIS v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01834
DANIELS v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01854
BUTCHER v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01860
CARACCIOLA v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01863
CLINE v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01874
BANK v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01970
CARR v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01971
CHAMBERS v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01972
COPELAND v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01974
[1336]*1336CURRAN v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY CA. No. 2:16-01976
CROSBY v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01977
DAVIS v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01981
DEGOUVILLE v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01983
BOARD v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01990
DEAN v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01991
DEODENE v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02076
EVANS v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02078
FLOYD v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02081
FULLER v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02088
GRIFFITH v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02084
HARVIN v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02086
HATTON v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02088
HAYES v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02092
BAKER v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02127
EISENBERG v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02129
IEZZA v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02131
JACOBS v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02132
JEDLICA v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02135
JOHNSON v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02136
KELLY v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02138
KUEHL v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02140
KUROV v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02142
LAUER v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02147
PICKETT v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-02160
DRAPER MALLORY v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
829 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 F. Supp. 3d 1334, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172577, 2016 WL 7221105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-geico-telephone-claim-representatives-fair-labor-standards-act-flsa-jpml-2016.