Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00414—SLR Document 59 Filed 07/29/2005 Paget of4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ` °
JUL 29 Fi} LH Sli
WILLIE DAVIS, JR., NATHANIEL )
BRIDDELL, JOSEPH GARRISON, )
LARRY E. GIBBS, ROY H. WALTERS, )
and ALL SIMILARLY-SITUATED )
CURRENT AND FORMER )
EMPLOYEES OF MOUNTAIRE FARMS, )
INC., MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF )
DELMARVA, INC., and MOUNTAIRE )
FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., )
I
Plaintiffs, )
I
v. )
) Civil Action No. 04-414-KAJ
MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., a Delaware )
corporation, MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF )
DELMARVA, a Delaware corporation, )
and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF )
DELAWARE, INC., a Delaware )
corporation, )
I
Defendants. )
I
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Willie Davis, Jr., Nathaniel Briddell, Joseph Garrison, Larry E. Gibbs, and Roy H.
Walters (collectively, "PIaintiffs”) have filed a Motion for Reargument (Docket Item
["D.I."] 57; the "Motion") of the Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 55) and Order (D.I. 56)
issued in this case on June 28, 2005. The Motion is opposed by Mountaire Farms, Inc.,
Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, Inc., and Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.
(collectively, "Defendants"). (D.l. 58.) For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.

Case 1:04-cv—00414—SLR Document 59 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 2 of 4
Nothing in the P|aintiffs' filing persuades me that the already fully briefed and
fully considered issues in this case should be revisited.
The standards that apply to motions for reargument and reconsideration have been
stated as follows:
The District of Delaware, through published case law, has developed rules
that govern motions for reargument under Local Rule 7.1.5. These
governing principles are simply stated: 1) reargument should be granted
only when the merits clearly warrant and should never be afforded a
Iitigant if reargument would not result in an amendment of an order; 2) the
purpose of reargument is to permit the Court to correct error without
unduly sacrificing finality; 3) grant of the reargument motion can only
occur in one of three circumstances: a) "where the Court has patently
misunderstood a party," b) "[where the Court] has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties," or c)
"[where the Court] has made an error not of reasoning but of
apprehension[;]" and 4) a motion for reargument may not be used by the
losing Iitigant as a vehicle to supplement or enlarge the record provided to
the Court and upon which the merits decision was made unless "new
factual matters not previously obtainable have been discovered since the
issue was submitted to the Court[.]"
Schering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 293, 295 (D. Del. 1998) (citations
omitted).
Here, the Plaintiffs have failed to meet those standards. First, they seek to
introduce a new argument that Defendants wiifully failed to pay overtime prior to June
or July 2002, when Plaintiffs became salaried employees. (D.I. 57 at 1]1] 1-3.) But that
argument "has not been addressed by the briefing and/or resolved by the Court" (D.I.
57 at 1] 4) and is therefore not properly the subject of a motion for reargument. It is
simply an attempt "to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to
2

Case 1:04-cv—00414—SLR Document 59 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 3 of 4
the court in the matter previously decided." Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.
Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990)}
Plaintiffs’ second argument, that crew leaders lacked authority to effectively hire
an fire employees (D.l. 57 at '|]'|] 5-16), is nothing more than a "repetition of arguments
already briefed, considered and decided."2 735 F. Supp. at 1240 (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs argue that I relied upon an unsupported statement by defense counsel
characterizing the deposition testimony of Mr. Lynch as being that "Defendants human
resource department is not involved in recruiting and hiring chicken catchers and does
not advertise for chicken catcher positions." (D.l. 57 at 111] 6-7.) Lynch’s testimony as a
whole, however, establishes that crew leaders (a) make the recommendation to human
resources regarding whom to hire as a chicken catcher, (b) are responsible for
maintaining a full crew and recruiting the catchers, and (c) have authority to recommend
termination. (D.l. 45, Ex. 32 at A00838-43, A00846-49.) Human resources is generally
involved only in administrative tasks such as pre—empIoyment (medical) screening,
ensuring, if necessary, validity of immigration papers, and issuing company lDs. (Id. at
A00841-43) Even if human resources made the ultimate determination as to who gets _
hired based on the medical examination and paperwork (D.l. 45, Ex. 32 at A00842), I
‘Even assuming, however, that l were to consider PIaintiffs' new argument, their
Motion would still be unfounded. Plaintiffs fall to present any evidence in support of
their assertion that Defendants wilfully failed to pay overtime.
2PIaintiffs also urge me to consider (which I have) the affidavits of those Plaintiffs
who have not been involved in firing of any chicken catchers. (D.I. 57 at 11 16.) Even if
not all Plaintiffs have fired catchers, involvement in firing is not the standard by which to
determine whether an employee is exempt. See 29 C.F.R. § 541 .100(a)(4). Q
3
l
it
l

Case 1:04-cv—00414—SLR Document 59 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 4 of 4
reconsideration of my earlier opinion is not warranted because the outcome would not
change.
Plaintiffs further cite to deposition testimony of Mr. Walters "who stated
repeatedly that as a crew leader, he has no input as to who gets hired." (D.l. 57 at 11
8.) While It/Ir. Walters did not concede having suggested anybody for hire, he "informed
[ll/lr. Drummond] of the position that he had to go through in order to get a job go
through company policy to work for Mountaire go through the channels, go through
personnel, drug tests after Drummond, who worked for Walters at the time the
deposition was taken, inquired of Walters howto get a job with Defendants. (D.l. 45,
Ex. 29 at 692-93.) Thus, the record supports that ll/lr. Walters was involved in getting
Drummond hired.
Plaintiffs, with both arguments, have failed to meet the legal standard for
reargument and, therefore, their motion must be denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that P|aintiffs’ Motion for Reargument (D.|. 57) is DENIED.
1 Q Z
A L Cv;
UN TE STATES n T JUDGE
July 29, 2005 W
Wilmington, Delaware
4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 59

Filed 07/29/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 59

Filed 07/29/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 59

Filed 07/29/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 59

Filed 07/29/2005

Page 4 of 4