Steele-Warrick v. Microgenics Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NADEZDA STEELE-WARRICK and

DARRYL SCHULTZ, individually and

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Case No. 19-CV-6558-FB-VMS

-against-

MICROGENICS CORPORATION, THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC., ANTHONY ANNUCCI, JAMES O’GORMAN, CHARLES KELLY, RICHARD FINNEGAN, DONALD VENETTOZZI, ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, COREY BEDARD, and JENNIFER BOOTH,

Defendants. Appearances: For Defendants Anthony Annucci, For the Plaintiffs: James O’Gorman, Charles Kelly, MATTHEW D. BRINCKERHOFF Richard Finnegan, and Corey Bedard: Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward LINDA FANG & Maazel LLP New York State Office of 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor The Attorney General New York, New York 10020 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005

For Defendants Microgenics Corporation and Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.: CHRISTOPHER R. CARTON Bowman and Brooke LLP 317 George Street, Suite 320 New Brunswick, NJ 08901 BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On September 24, 2024, the parties held a pre-motion conference regarding

their proposed motions for summary judgment. One issue warranted immediate attention: if this Court must decide a proposed class certification motion for a putative class simultaneously with or prior to resolving the proposed summary

judgment motions. I have decided that the Court has discretion to first decide on the summary judgment motions, and it is warranted in this case. The Plaintiffs and Defendants Microgenics Corporation and Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. (“Corporate Defendants”) argue that the “one-way intervention

rule” requires this Court to decide on class certification before making merits determinations. DDMB, Inc. v. Visa, Inc., 05-MD-1720, 2021 WL 6221326, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2021). That “rule” ensures that a merits determination binds all

purported class members. See Brecher v. Republic of Arg., 806 F.3d 22, 26 (2d Cir. 2015). But as Defendants Annucci, O’Gorman, Kelly, Finnegan, and Bedard (“DOCCS Defendants”) correctly contend, the Court has discretion to decide the

summary judgment motions before turning to the issue of class certification. Schweizer v. Trans Union Corp., 136 F.3d 233, 239 (2d Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs concede that the Court has such discretion. ECF No. 306 at 1 (citing Lowenbien v.

Transworld Sys., Inc., No. 19-CV-492 (BMC), 2019 WL 3081095, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 15, 2019)). And no party cites a case that treats the “one-way intervention rule” as precluding such judicial discretion.

Judicial economy encourages deciding first on summary judgment when a merits determination could inform and even moot class certification issues without prejudicing the parties. See Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., 721 F.3d 132, 134-

35 (2d Cir. 2013). Corporate Defendants state that “if this Court grants Defendants’ summary judgment motions, it will not need to rule on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.” See ECF No. 307 at 3. This may well be the case. There exists the profound issue of qualified immunity as applied to the DOCCS Defendants. The

Second Circuit has instructed the Court to resolve that issue “expeditiously.” Steele-Warrick v. Finnegan, 2024 WL 2837618, at *3 (2d Cir. 2024). Under the circumstances of this case, the Court will therefore first entertain

the proposed summary judgment motions on the issue of qualified immunity before addressing any other motions for summary judgment or class certification. However, subsequent summary judgment motions, if made, will be addressed in conjunction with any class certification motion.

SO ORDERED. _/S/ Frederic Block__________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York October 8, 2024