Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR Document 41 Filed 05/O2/2005 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIE DAVIS, JR., )
NA'l`I-IANIEL BRIDDELL, )
JOSEPH GARRISON, )
LARRY E. GIBBS, )
ROY H. WALTERS, )
)
ALL SIMILARLY-SITUATED CURRENT ) C.A. NO. 04-0414-KAJ
AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF )
M OUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDE-D
MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF )
DELMARVA, INC., and MOUNTAIRE ) COLLECTIVE ACTION
FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., )
MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF )
DELMARVA, INC., and )
M OUNTAIRE FARMS OF )
DELAWARE, INC., all Delaware corporations, )
)
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DE FENDANT
MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., MOUNTAIRE FARSM OF DELMARVA, INC., and
MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC.
Plaintiffs, Willie Davis, Jr., Nathaniel Briddell, Joseph Garrison, Larry E. Gibbs, and Roy
H. Walters, (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"), by and through their undersigned attorney, hereby moves
this Court to enter an Order pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting
Summary Judgment in their favor on all claims set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The grounds
lor this Motion for Summary Judgment are as follows:
l. At all relevant times to the Complaint, Plaintiffs were employed in the capacity of
Crew Leaders with Defendant.
2. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, Mountaire Farms, Inc.,
Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, Inc., and Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., (hereinafter

Case 1:04-ev-00414-SLR Document 41 Filed 05/O2/2005 Page 2 of 3
"Defendant") failed to compensate them at the appropriate rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA°°), 29 U.S.C. § 201 Q gg. and the applicable Department of Labor
Regulations.
3. Plaintiffs also allege in their Complaint a violation of 19 Del. C. § 1l02(b)(i) in
that Defendant willfully determined not to pay Plaintiffs overtime. Therefore, Plaintiffs are
entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid overtime pursuant to 19 Del. C.
§ l103(b) and attorneys’ fees, costs of prosecution and costs of this action pursuant to 19 Del. C.
§ 1ll3(c).
4. Plaintiffs further allege in their Complaint a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) in
that Defendant intentionally retaliated against them in the fonn of intimidation and threats to
their employment.
5. Plaintiffs tiled this action on June 18, 2004.
6. Defendant filed its Answer te the Cem_plaint which was received by Plaintil`fs”
counsel on or about December 16, 2004.
7. On or about January 14, 2005, Plaintiffs served discovery requests upon
Defendant. Included in those discovery requests were Plaintiffs’ First Set of interrogatories,
Plaintil`fs’ First Request for Production of Doeurnents and Plaintiffs’ First Request for
Admissions Directed to Defendant.
8. Summary judgment "shall be rendered” where “the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there
. is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary
judgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
9. For a Plaintiff to be entitled to summary judgment on its claim, the Plaintiff must
show there are no genuine issues of material fact and establish each element ef its claim as a

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR Document 41 Filed 05/O2/2005 Page 3 of 3
matter of law. San Pedro v. US., 79 F.3d 1065, 1068 (llm Cir. 1996); Fonterzot v. Ugjohn Ce.,
780 P.2d 1190, 1194 (Sm Cir. 1986).
10. The Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment only if,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Defendant, there are no genuine issues of
material fact and no jury could find in favor of the Defendant. Chlorine Inst., Inc. v. Califormn
1'*i'.igf1n»cii»Pc1ti*0!, 29 F.3d 495, 496 (9th Cir. 1994).
l 1.. The allegations set forth by Plaintiffs in the Complaint, therefore, should be
deemed by this Court to have merit and justify that violations of The Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 USC. §20l er seq, the applicable Department of Labor Regulations, 29 C.F.R. 541.3, er seq,.
and the Delaware Wage Payment and Collection Act, Title 19 ofthe Delaware Code, Chapter ll
have occurred.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing facts and legal authority, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this
Honorable Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants Mountaire
Farms, lnc., Meuntaire F arms of Delmarva, Inc., and Mountaire Farms of Delaware, lnc.
Respectfully submitted,
MARGOLIS EDELSTElN
@ g 4;/ZM/Me Q
Jeffrey K. Martin, Esquire (#2407)
Keri L. Morris, Esquire (#4656)
1509 Gilpin Avenue
Wilmington, Delaware 19806
(302) 777-4680
A ttorneys for Platt;/1t%
Dated: May 2, 2005

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 41

Filed 05/02/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 41

Filed 05/02/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 41

Filed 05/02/2005

Page 3 of 3