Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00249-SGB

Document 13

Filed 03/31/2008

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ANDREW W. BREINER, et al. Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

)
)

)
) ) ) ) )

)

Case No. 07-249C (Judge Susan G. Braden)

)

PROPOSED JOINT BRIEFING SCHEDULE Pursuant to the Court's direction at a telephonic status conference conducted on February 28, 2008, plaintiffs and defendant respectfully submit the following proposed schedule for briefing the issue whether the time that plaintiffs have spent solely driving a Government vehicle between home and work constitutes compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seth.: 1. On or before April 15, 2008, defendant shall file a dispositive motion concerning

the above-stated issue. In support of this motion, defendant will assert that plaintiffs' claims with respect to home-to-work driving are controlled by Adams v. United States, 471 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 866 (2008), and that, under this controlling precedent, plaintiffs' driving claims should be dismissed as a matter of law. 2. In the event that plaintiffs serve discovery requests upon defendant prior to a

ruling upon defendant's dispositive motion, defendant reserves the right to request a protective order staying or precluding discovery upon the ground that discovery is unwarranted and an undue burden because, under the Federal Circuit's decision in Adams, plaintiffs' driving claims should be dismissed as a matter of law.

Case 1:07-cv-00249-SGB

Document 13

Filed 03/31/2008

Page 2 of 4

3.

In the event that discovery is not stayed or precluded by the Court, all discovery

concerning the driving issue shall be completed on or before May 23, 2008. 4. Except with respect to claims based upon time spent driving between home and

work in a Govenm'~ent vehicle, the parties anticipate settling this action. Plaintiffs' proposal to settle the claims that are not based upon such driving time was approved by the authorized representative of the Attorney General. However, counsel for the parties have been discussing the appropriate terms to include in the settlement agreement, which, in its present form, would apply to this case and 12 other cases involving similar claims. These discussions principally concern the manner in which payments under the settlement should be calculated in certain situations that may be relevant to a limited number of plaintiffs in these cases. Accordingly, the parties believe that briefing of issues other than the driving issue is not wan'anted at this time.

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00249-SGB

Document 13

Filed 03/31/2008

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted, JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General JULES BERNSTEIN Bernstein & Lipsett, P.C. 1920 L Street, N.W. Suite 303 Washington, D.C. 20036 Director OF COL~SEL: LINDA LIPSETT Tel: (202) 296-1798 Fax: (202) 296-7220 SHALOM BRILLIANT Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 616-8275 Fax: (202) 305-7643 OF COUNSEL: Michael J. Dierberg William Rayel Trial Attorneys Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attorneys for Defendant Dated: March 4~/e, 2008

E. DAVIDSON

1101 17th Street, N.W. Suite 510 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 496-0500 Fax: (202) 496-0555 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: March~'], 2008

-3-

Case 1:07-cv-00249-SGB

Document 13

Filed 03/31/2008

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 31st day of March, 2008, a copy of the foregoing "PROPOSED JOINT BRIEFING SCHEDULE" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

s/Shalom Brilliant