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

Case 1:04-cv—O0414-SLR Document 138 Filed O9/16/2008 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIE DAVIS, JR., NATI-IANIEL BRIDDELL, )
GEORGE W. FEDDIMAN, JOSEPH GARRISON, ) C. A. No. O4-0414-SLR
LARRY E. GIBBS and ROY H. WALTERS, )
) J URY TRIAL DEMANDED
ALL SIMILARLY-SITUATED CURRENT AND )
FORMER EMLOYEES OF MOUNTAIRE ) COLLECTIVE ACTION
FARMS, INC., MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF )
DELMARVA, INC., and MOUNTAIRE FARMS )
OF DELAWARE, INC., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., )
MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELMARVA, INC., )
and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF )
DELAWARE, INC., all Delaware corporations, )
)
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56, Plaintiffs file this Motion for Summary
Judgment for the following reasons:
1. In accordance with Local Rule 7.l.I., Plaintiffs’ counsel discussed this motion
with defense counsel on September 10, 2008 and no agreement was reached.
2. At the suggestion of Defendants’ counsel during trial, which was held in this
matter from August 5 through 8, 2008, Plaintiffs verbally moved for a judgment in their favor
awarding them overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Action ("FLSA")
for the period June 200l through June 2002.
3. Vfhilc defense counsel filed an objection for the record, it was clear that
Defendant Mountaire essentially conceded the overtime compensability for this time period.

Case 1:04-cv—O0414-SLR Document 138 Filed O9/16/2008 Page 2 of 4
4. The Court reserved decision on P1aintiffs’ Motion and no decision has been
rendered to date. I
5. P1aintiffs’ Motion for Judgment with regard to this year of compensation was
prompted by Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Number 1, attached hereto as Exhibit "l". This Exhibit was
initially denied admission but the Court then permitted it to be admitted as a Court; Exhibit.
6. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 is a Mountaire document entitled, "DOL Audit Review"
dated March 21, 2001 and states, in pertinent part, “Crew Leaders should also be paid (OT)
because they are not salary (sic)."
7. lt is undisputed and acknowledged by Defendant that the crew leaders were not
paid by salary until after June 2002.
8. Both Exhibit 1 and Defendanfs acknowledgment that no salaries were paid until
June 2002 constitute an admission by Mountaire that they owe overtime compensation and other
benefits pursuant to the F air Labor Standards Act for that period of time.
9. The issues before the jury at trial were limited to the time period beginning June
2002 and an examination as to whether the crew leaders met the "hiring and tiring” test under the
FLSA.
10. The jury’s verdict of non—compensability has no bearing on the crew leaders’
eligibility for compensation from June 2001 through June 2002.
ll. Immediately following the vacation of Eric Hermnendinger, Esquire, attorney for
Defendant Mountaire, on August 18, 2008, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent via electronic mail a letter
1 Judgment was entered by the Court on August 13, 2008 (D.I. 133 entered in accordance
with the jury verdict-) At trial, the jury was never presented with the issue of overtime
compensation compensability for the year June 2001- June 2002. Thus, while the docket is
considered "closed" Plaintiffs’ Motion remains pending.
2

Case 1:04-cv—O0414-SLR Document 133 Filed O9/16/2008 Page 3 of 4
seeking overtime compensation for June 2001 through June 2002.2 The August 18, 2008 letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit "2".
12. In the August 18, 2008 letter, Plaintiffs’ counsel set forth a calculation of
overtime compensation for each ofthe five plaintiff`s’ in this matter. 0
13. Prior to communicating with Mr. Hcmmendinger on September 10, 2008,
Plaintiffs’ counsel left messages with Mr. I·Iemmendinger’s office on August 22, 2008 and
August 27, 2008 as well as sending an e-mail to Mr. I-Iemmendinger dated September P4, 2008.
There was no response to any of these communication efforts by Plaintiffs? counsel.
14. On September 10, 2008, Plaintiffs’ counsel spoke with Mr. Hemmcndinger who
acknowledged that neither he nor his client sent any type of response to the August 18, 2008
letter.
15. During the September 10, 2008 communication, Mr. Hennnendinger advised
Plaintiffs’ counsel that in order to get a response in this matter, this matter would have to be
addressed to this Court.
16. Recognizing that Defendant has no valid defense to Plaintiffs’ Motion and after
having essentially conceded liability while at trial in this issue, Plaintiffs respectfully request that
the Court enter judgment in their favor against Defendant.
WHEREFORE, for the forgoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that their Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment be granted.
2 The Court may recall that this trial was rescheduled from August ll, 2008 to August 5,
2008 pursuant to Mr. Henunendingefs statement that he would be on a pre—planned family
vacation the week beginning August 11, 2008.
3

Case 1:04-cv—O0414-SLR Document 138 Filed O9/16/2008 Page 4 of 4
MAR · & WILSON, P.A.
I / ’
` JEF '*}* Y 0* MARTIN (ID No. 2407)
TIMOTHY J. WILSON (ID No. 4323)
1508 Pennsylvania Avenue
Wihnington, DE 19806
302-777-4681
]`ma1‘tin@@a1‘tinandvvi1son.com
twils0n@,n3a1*ti11and\¤ri1son.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DATED: September 16, 2008
4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 138

Filed 09/16/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 138

Filed 09/16/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 138

Filed 09/16/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 138

Filed 09/16/2008

Page 4 of 4