Samokovski v. Hillstone Healthcare Inc.

S.D. Ohio

Samokovski v. Hillstone Healthcare Inc.

DecidedMarch 27, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-00701

StatusUnknown

This text of Samokovski v. Hillstone Healthcare Inc. (Samokovski v. Hillstone Healthcare Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Samokovski v. Hillstone Healthcare Inc., (S.D. Ohio 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI NADIA SAMOKOVSKL et al., for : Case No. 1:22-cv-701 themselves and all others similarly : situated, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland Plaintiffs, : HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE INC., et al., 2 Defendants.

ORDER STAYING CASE

This matter is before the Court following a Preliminary Pretrial Conference with the parties. The parties have submitted their Rule 26(f) report, wherein they propose dates for discovery. The parties disagree on how to proceed with discovery. Plaintiffs believe that discovery should proceed on the definition and scope of the proposed collective class. Defendants contend that discovery should be stayed pending the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Brooke Clark, et al. v. AG@L Home Care and Training Center, LLC, Nos. 22-3101 & 22-3102. In those cases, the Circuit will decide issues relating to conditional certification in cases arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Oral argument was held on December 7, 2022. The Circuit’s decision will directly impact how this Court resolves certification and oversees this matter. “{T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court

to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 US. 248, 254-55 (1936). Upon consideration of the parties’ interests, judicial economy, and efficient litigation, the Court STAYS this matter pending the Sixth Circuit's resolution of Clarke. Furthermore, upon consideration of the relevant factors, tolling is appropriate. The circumstances here—anticipating a higher court’s clarification of how FLSA collective actions ought to be certified —support tolling here. Putative members will lack actual or constructive knowledge of the filing deadlines until notice, reasonably so, and notice will necessarily be delayed because of the stay. Counsel for defendants were not opposed to this approach. Struck v. PNC Bank N.A., 931 F. Supp. 2d 842, 846 (S.D. Ohio 2013). As such, the Court TOLLS the FLSA’s statute of limitations for putative collective action members. The parties are DIRECTED to notify the Court when the Sixth Circuit decides Clarke or if they reach a settlement. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MW, We I we JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI NADIA SAMOKOVSKL et al., for : Case No. 1:22-cv-701 themselves and all others similarly : situated, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland Plaintiffs, : HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE INC., et al., 2 Defendants.

ORDER STAYING CASE

This matter is before the Court following a Preliminary Pretrial Conference with the parties. The parties have submitted their Rule 26(f) report, wherein they propose dates for discovery. The parties disagree on how to proceed with discovery. Plaintiffs believe that discovery should proceed on the definition and scope of the proposed collective class. Defendants contend that discovery should be stayed pending the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Brooke Clark, et al. v. AG@L Home Care and Training Center, LLC, Nos. 22-3101 & 22-3102. In those cases, the Circuit will decide issues relating to conditional certification in cases arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Oral argument was held on December 7, 2022. The Circuit’s decision will directly impact how this Court resolves certification and oversees this matter. “{T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court

to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 US. 248, 254-55 (1936). Upon consideration of the parties’ interests, judicial economy, and efficient litigation, the Court STAYS this matter pending the Sixth Circuit's resolution of Clarke. Furthermore, upon consideration of the relevant factors, tolling is appropriate. The circumstances here—anticipating a higher court’s clarification of how FLSA collective actions ought to be certified —support tolling here. Putative members will lack actual or constructive knowledge of the filing deadlines until notice, reasonably so, and notice will necessarily be delayed because of the stay. Counsel for defendants were not opposed to this approach. Struck v. PNC Bank N.A., 931 F. Supp. 2d 842, 846 (S.D. Ohio 2013). As such, the Court TOLLS the FLSA’s statute of limitations for putative collective action members. The parties are DIRECTED to notify the Court when the Sixth Circuit decides Clarke or if they reach a settlement. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MW, We I we JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Samokovski v. Hillstone Healthcare Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samokovski-v-hillstone-healthcare-inc-ohsd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack