MacMann v. Tropicana Entertainment, Inc.
This text of MacMann v. Tropicana Entertainment, Inc. (MacMann v. Tropicana Entertainment, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
TRACI L. MACMANN, individually, ) and on behalf of all others similarly ) situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:19 CV 404 RWS ) TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT, ) INC., and TROPICANA ST. LOUIS, ) LLC, D/B/A LUMIERE PLACE ) CASINO & HOTELS, ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before me on Defendant Tropicana Entertainment Inc.’s (“Tropicana”) motion for summary judgment, ECF No. [53], and Plaintiff Traci MacMann’s motion seeking to stay consideration and briefing of the Defendants’ summary judgment motion. ECF No. [58]. For the reasons below, I will grant Plaintiff additional time to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this putative Missouri Minimum Wage Law class action and nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action on March 4, 2019. The Complaint was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees who “work or worked for Defendants at their casino properties within the respective limitations periods.” Pl. Compl. ¶ 19. It alleges FLSA violations concerning Defendant’s nationwide compensation policies. Pl. Compl. ¶ 19.
On May 13, 2019, the parties filed their Joint Scheduling Plan, ECF No. [24], which included competing proposals about how to phase discovery. Defendant’s proposed a three-phase discovery plan with the first phase focused
exclusively on the FLSA joint employer issue. Plaintiff’s proposed a two-phase plan, with the first phase focused on issues related to conditional and class certification. On May 21, 2019, the Case Management Order - Conditional and Class Certification Issues, ECF No. [25], was issued, adopting a two-phase
discovery schedule. Although the Case Management Order focused on Conditional and Class Certification, it did not explicitly limit the initial phase of discovery to these issues. Phase one discovery is ongoing and currently scheduled to close on
July 9, 2020. On February 20, 2020, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on the issue of Tropicana’s status as a joint employer under FLSA. Plaintiff responded with a motion to stay consideration of summary arguing the joint
employer issue was outside the scope of phase one discovery. II. DISCUSSION A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
“Rule 56[d] allows a party to request a delay in granting summary judgment if the party can make a good faith showing that postponement of the ruling would enable it to discover additional evidence which might rebut the movant's showing
of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Robinson v. Terex Corp., 439 F.3d 465, 467 (8th Cir.2006) (citing Small Bus. Admin. v. Light, 766 F.2d 394, 397–98 (8th Cir.1985)). “Although discovery need not be complete before a case is dismissed, summary judgment is proper only if the nonmovant has had adequate
time for discovery.” Id.(citing Pony Computer, Inc. v. Equus Computer Sys. of Mo., Inc., 162 F.3d 991, 996 (8th Cir.1996)). The Eighth Circuit has interpreted this to require that “[t]he party seeking additional discovery must show: (1) that
they have set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are ‘essential’ to resist the summary judgment motion.” Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2014). But, the purpose of
Rule 56(d) is to provide an additional safeguard against an improvident or premature grant of summary judgment and it “should be applied with a spirit of liberality.” U.S. ex rel. Bernard v. Casino Magic Corp., 293 F.3d 419,426 (8th
Cir.2002). In this case Plaintiff argues she did not conduct discovery related to the joint employer issue, because she believed the case management order limited phase one
discovery to issues concerning conditional and class certification. Defendants argue that the case management order did not limit the scope of discovery and Plaintiff’s failure to perform necessary discovery was remiss and does not warrant
relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Although I agree with the Defendant that the joint employer issue was not beyond the scope of phase one discovery, and I believe it should be considered in parallel with conditional and class certification, Plaintiff’s failure to engage in joint
employer discovery was based on a good faith misinterpretation of the case management order. Because of this good faith error, the plaintiff has not had adequate time to conduct discovery regarding the joint employer issue and has
demonstrated that additional discovery would aide in the disposition of the summary judgment motion. Additionally, Plaintiff has set forth the specific information she hopes to elicit from further discovery, the documents and discovery she believes will contain the information, and the reason the information
is necessary to respond to the Defendant’s motion. Therefore, additional time to conduct discovery and respond to the Defendant’s motion is warranted. But, as both parties indicated in their briefings the discovery necessary to
address conditional and class certification overlaps and the joint employer issue overlap, so an additional six months is not necessary. Accordingly, I will extend phase one discovery until August 25, 2020. This will give Plaintiff approximately
90 days to conduct discovery regarding the joint employer issue. Plaintiff will then have until September 25, 2020, to file a response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and file their brief in support of conditional and class
certification. An amended case management order detailing the new schedule will be issued herewith. B. Equitable Tolling Plaintiff also requested the court equitably toll the limitations period for
putative collective members through the date of conditional certification. Equitable tolling is a “limited and infrequent form of relief” that is available if a party establishes “(1) that [s]he has been pursuing h[er] rights diligently, and (2) that
some extraordinary circumstance stood in h[er] way.” Smithrud v. City of St. Paul, 746 F.3d 391, 396 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, (2005)). In this case, some period of tolling is appropriate. Plaintiff has been
diligently pursuing her case, filing numerous consents to join and actively participating in discovery. Additionally, courts have recognized, delays caused by the court can constitute “extraordinary circumstances.” See Davenport v. Charter
Communications, LLC, 2014 WL 2993739 at *4-5 & *6-8 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2014). Since I delayed briefing on conditional and class certification so it could be considered in parallel with the joint employer issue, tolling is appropriate for the period between August 13, 2020, the previous deadline for the plaintiff to file a brief in support of conditional and class certification, and September 25, 2020, the amended deadline.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
MacMann v. Tropicana Entertainment, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macmann-v-tropicana-entertainment-inc-moed-2020.