Philip Petrone v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., No. 20-2500 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
This class action arises out of claims by commercial truck drivers who assert that they were not paid proper amounts while working for Werner Enterprises, Inc., and Drivers Management, LLC, (collectively Defendants) as part of Defendants’ Student Driver Program. In a previous appeal, we considered Defendants’ challenge to a jury verdict in favor of Philip Petrone and others (collectively, Plaintiffs) on some of Plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that the district court erred in amending the scheduling order to allow Plaintiffs to submit an expert report past the disclosure deadline without good cause.
Because the expert evidence was integral to the jury’s verdict, the Eighth Circuit determined that this error was not harmless, and vacated the judgment. The case returned to the court after the district court, on remand, entered judgment in favor of Defendants. The court then vacated the judgment. The court explained that read in its entirety, the decision left the door open for the district court to consider how to proceed in light of the Circuit Court’s ruling that the district court should not have granted the motion to amend the scheduling order. The court explained that its mandate thus did not direct the district court to affirmatively find in Defendants’ favor, and their suggestion to the contrary is without merit.
Finally, while the district court properly determined that Plaintiffs could not present evidence of damages through summary evidence pursuant to Rule 1006, it failed to conduct an analysis pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1) and failed to address Plaintiffs’ request for appointment of an expert pursuant to Rule 706.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Fair Labor Standards Act. In this class action commercial truck drivers claimed they were not properly paid for off-duty time while participating in defendants' student driver program. For the court's previous opinion in the matter, vacating the jury's verdict and remanding the matter, see Petrone v. Werner Enters., Inc., 940 F.3d 425 (8th Cir. 2019). On remand, the district court entered judgment for defendants, concluding that without expert evidence, plaintiffs could not prove damages. Plaintiffs appeal. On remand, the district court erred in failing to conduct the requisite Rule 37(c)(1) analysis before excluding the expert testimony; by moving for a new trial, plaintiffs sought to use the untimely expert report to justify a new trial, which triggered the court's obligation to conduct the Rule 37(c)(1) analysis; similarly, the district court abused is discretion by failing to consider plaintiffs' Rule 706 request for appointment of a new expert; the district court did not err in concluding that without testimony from an expert, plaintiffs could not prove damages based on the pay and time data already offered in the case; reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
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.