Naltner

• Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
• Decided: March 8, 2023
• Docket: 21-1064
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

RICHARD NALTNER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. 21-cv-1064 v. Filed: March 8, 2023 THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

ORDER

There are three motions currently pending before this Court. The first is Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment, which contends that Plaintiffs Richard Naltner and David Deetz

are not entitled to overtime back pay as a matter of law. See Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgement (ECF No. 40) (Summary Judgment Motion) at 1. The second is Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Class Certification (Class Motion), filed on March 1, 2023. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class

Certification (ECF No. 41). In the Class Motion, Plaintiffs move this Court under Rule 23 to

certify a class of United States Secret Service investigators and officers who were denied overtime

pay under certain situations. Id. at 5. The current Scheduling Order in place did not set a date for

the filing of the Class Motion. See Scheduling Order (ECF No. 34); Order Granting in Part

Defendant’s Motion to Amend Schedule (ECF No. 39). Plaintiffs filed the Class Motion “[i]n

anticipation of this court potentially denying the pending Government summary judgment.” Class

Motion at 1.

The third motion — and the one at issue in this Order — is Defendant’s Motion to Stay Its

Duty to File a Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Stay Motion), filed on March

3, 2023, shortly after Plaintiffs had filed their Class Motion. See Defendant’s Motion to Stay (ECF

1 No. 43). In the Stay Motion, Defendant moves this Court to stay briefing on the Class Motion

until after the Court rules on Defendant’s pending Summary Judgment Motion. Id. at 1. Defendant

argues a stay is appropriate because “the merits of class certification may well depend on the

outcome of the Government’s motion for summary judgment.” Stay Motion at 2. Defendant notes

that should this Court grant Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion, the Class Motion will

become moot. Id. Alternatively, Defendant contends that even if this Court were to deny

Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion, the opinion may inform whether Plaintiffs’ claims “meet

the class action requirements — including commonality, typicality, and adequacy.” Id. at 2–3.

Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s Stay Motion, arguing the motion is “the Government’s latest delay

tactic in the instant litigation.” Plaintiffs’ Opposition (Opp.) (ECF No. 44) at 2.

After considering the parties’ arguments, this Court concludes there is good cause to stay

briefing on the Class Motion. Accordingly, this Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Stay,

ECF No. 43.

“The power of a federal trial court to stay its proceedings . . . is beyond question.”

Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “When and how

to stay proceedings is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. Judicial and litigant

economy is central to a court’s decision to stay all or part of a proceeding. See Landis v. North

Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

As a preliminary matter, granting the Stay Motion is consistent with the sequence of this

case thus far. The parties’ Joint Preliminary Status Report (JPSR) (ECF No. 22) contemplated an

initial, “limited discovery period” related to Plaintiffs’ capacity to serve as class representatives.

See JPSR at 4. Only after this limited discovery, and “dependent upon the outcome of any potential

Motions for Summary Judgment,” did “the parties anticipate that plaintiffs will move for class

2 certification.” Id. Based on this understanding and agreement by the parties, as reflected in the

JPSR, it is premature to adjudicate the Class Motion. Although the Class Motion was not

procedurally improper, it upset the agreed-upon sequence that Plaintiffs’ capacity to be class

representatives should be decided first, followed by class certification. Indeed, Plaintiffs

previously acknowledged that deciding Plaintiffs’ eligibility to be class representatives is

“preliminary to ultimately moving for class certification.” Transcript of Nov. 4, 2022 Status

Conference (ECF No. 32) at 13:15–21. The Class Motion also acknowledges this point, stating it

was filed “[i]n anticipation of this court potentially denying the pending Government summary

judgment, and concluding that plaintiffs Naltner and Deetz are adequate class representatives.”

Class Motion at 1. With briefing on Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion nearly complete and

oral argument set, there is no reason to discard the agreed-upon scheduling sequence in this case.

See Order (ECF No. 39) (ordering completion of briefing by March 13, 2023); Minute Order, dated

March 3, 2023 (scheduling oral argument for April 26, 2023).

Even setting aside the parties’ representations regarding the case schedule, a stay of the

Class Motion would still be appropriate. It would be inefficient to forge ahead on the class

certification question when Plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief is not yet decided, especially where, as

here, the Summary Judgment Motion will be ripe for adjudication shortly. It is well-established

that a plaintiff who “suffered no injury” is “not eligible to represent a class of persons who did

allegedly suffer injury.” East Tex. Motor Freight Sys. Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403–04

(1977). Should this Court grant Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion, the Class Motion will

be moot. Accordingly, deferring briefing and consideration of the Class Motion will further

judicial and litigant economy.

3 Additionally, even if this Court were to ultimately deny summary judgment, the Court’s

ruling may impact whether Plaintiffs are sufficient class representatives under Rule 23(a). See

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350–51 (2011) (“Frequently [the] rigorous analysis

[of whether Rule 23(a) is satisfied] will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s

underlying claim. That cannot be helped.”) (internal citations omitted). That is what occurred in

a prior, analogous case, Horvath v. United States, Case No. 16-688, in which the court deferred

ruling on the plaintiff’s motion to certify a class in similar circumstances. See Horvath v. United

States, 149 Fed. Cl. 735, 741–43 (2020) (explaining, as background, that the court “[denied]

defendant’s motion for summary judgment and [deferred] the plaintiff’s motion for class

certification”). Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Horvath involved the same “claim set forth in

this [case].” See Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18), ¶ 28 (“The claim set forth in

this complaint [was] also brought forth by the plaintiff Michael Horvath in Horvath v. United

States.”). This Court agrees with the approach taken in Horvath — deferral of class certification

consideration until adjudication of summary judgment — as an appropriate and efficient course in

this proceeding. As consideration of Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion may impact the

merits of class certification, it is prudent to stay briefing on the Class Motion.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Stay Its Duty to File a Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Class Certification (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED. Defendant shall FILE its response to

Plaintiffs’ Class Motion (ECF No. 41) within 14 days of this Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion

for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Eleni M. Roumel ELENI M. ROUMEL Judge