In re: Robinson Helicopter Co., No. 16-1572 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseRobinson Helicopter petitioned for a writ of prohibition that would prevent the district court from enforcing an order directing Robinson Helicopter to file with the district court exhibits from depositions taken in Long v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. Long is a civil case that was filed in 2009 and closed in April 2012 after a settlement and judgment. Respondents, intervenors in the district court, seek the deposition exhibits for use in a civil action against Robinson that is pending in California state court and scheduled for trial on April 11, 2016. The court concluded that a writ should issue here, because the district court lacks power to impose any new discovery-related requirements on the parties to the Long case after that lawsuit was settled and closed in 2012. The exhibits at issue were never filed in the district court or otherwise made part of the record in Long. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court lacks authority at this juncture to require production of these documents for use by third parties. Insofar as Robinson Helicopter seeks additional prospective relief concerning deposition transcripts from Long that were filed pursuant to an order of the district court in 2014, the court denied the petition. Even assuming Robinson Helicopter has not waived any objection to the district court’s exercise of authority over the transcripts, there is no current controversy over access to them. Finally, the court denied Robinson Helicopter’s request for an award of fees and expenses.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Labor law - Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court did not err in determining Endless Possibilities and Contingent Care, which provide custodial care and educational services to young children, qualified as a preschool and was a covered enterprise under section 203(s)(1)(B). Any claim that their employees were exempt teachers was waived. The district court did not err in calculating damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as the court did not err in relying on the Secretary's calculations, did not err in finding employer's records inadequate or inaccurate, and made just and reasonable inferences to determine wages owed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.