Adams v. Ferrell Electric, Inc. et al, No. 1:2014cv00181 - Document 58 (S.D. Ga. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER denying Defendants' 56 Motion for settlement approval; denying as moot Plaintiff's 49 Motion to "disapprove" settlement; denying as moot Plaintiff's 50 Motion to "disapprove" settlement; granting Pl aintiff's 51 Motion to Compel; Defendants must comply with this ruling by November 4, 2016; Discovery with respect to the claims brought in "Adams" will officially close on November 14, 2016; ordering that the joint consolidated pro posed pretrial order must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on November 30, 2016, as outlined in the instructions included in this Order; ordering that all evidentiary objections and motions in limine that have not been resolved prior to the pretrial conference must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on December 2, 2016 and responses must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on December 16, 2016 and the parties are not permitted to file reply briefs in support of their motions in limine; directing that the pretrial conference is sched uled for Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and jury selection and trial are scheduled for Monday, January 9, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., etc.; granting Plaintiff's 52 Motion to Consolidate Cases; and directing the Clerk to consolidate case number CV 114-181 into "Brantley v. Ferrell Electric, Inc., CV 114-022 and all future motions must be filed in case number CV 114-022. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 9/28/2016. (jah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Adams v. Ferrell Electric, Inc. et al Doc. 58 IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION JOHNNY BRANTLEY ROBERT M. and * POU, * * Plaintiffs, * * v, * FERRELL ELECTRIC, JAMES N. FERRELL, INC. and CV 114-022 * * * Defendants. * * JASEN ADAMS, Plaintiff, * v. * FERRELL ELECTRIC, JAMES N. FERRELL, INC. CV 114-181 * and Defendants. * * ORDER In these Defendants' cases, violations Plaintiffs of the seek Fair Labor compensation Standards Act. for Over a year ago, the parties attended mediation and reached a favorable settlement amount. Because this is an FLSA case, the are not permitted to compromise without court approval. parties Despite Dockets.Justia.com repeated attempts, approval and different. the parties have been unable to obtain court finally Upon resolve these consideration, motions for settlement approval 56), GRANTS Plaintiffs' 134; Adams, doc. compel to (Adams, 52), doc. "disapprove" docs. 49, 51), the to This Court (Brantley, motions GRANTS cases. DENIES doc. Jasen (Brantley, doc. (Brantley, doc. Adams's motion docs. 131, to motions 133; Adams, 50). I. Background Plaintiffs Johnny Brantley, Gary Fletcher, Robert Pou, and Brannon Stuart filed Brantley v. Ferrell Electric, 022, no Defendants' and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs' settlement is 138; Adams, consolidate Plaintiff time Inc., CV 114- as a putative collective action under the FLSA in January 2014. (Brantley, Doc. 1.) Eventually, Plaintiffs abandoned their attempt at a collective action and decided to pursue their claims individually. dismissed Mr. (Brantley, Fletcher's and prejudice in January 2015. Jessie Swygert Electric, and the (Adams, Inc., and CV Court doc. 33). Jasen 114-181, dismissed Docs. Mr. Doc. initiated in September 2014 Mr. 37.) Stuart's (Brantley, Adams 35, Swygert's The claims 63.) Adams in without Plaintiffs v. (Adams, claims Court Ferrell doc. July 1) , 2015 In cases June while the 114; Adams, the 116; November a Subsequently, the cases signed the (Brantley, Doc. Defendants (Brantley, Doc. the 34.) The compromises Adams, Doc. that it 39.) must 120; Adams, Doc. settlement the Doc. all Court for both they Docs. cases opposed 35, until 37.) issues in filing the approval. Court responded by FLSA settlements. approve 40.) while Docs. that The in (Brantley, Adams, Defendants with cases stayed both informed the Court but these the parties informed fees. 117; in (Brantley, the Court Doc. agreements 119; stay attorneys' resolved, informing file over Defendants settlement deadlines proposed to (Brantley, had been all mediation. reached Court Doc. 2015. extended attended had dispute Adams, 9, Court Following mediation, they asked arbitrated 115, 27.) that but the parties Doc. Court cases, 2015, Defendants then moved to agreements under seal because "[confidentiality is an essential component" of the agreements. (Brantley, the Doc. Court denied 127; Adams, In 124 at 3; Doc. both Adams, Defendants' Doc. motions 43 at 3.) to seal. Unpersuaded, (Brantley, Doc. 46.) cases, Plaintiffs have filed the proposed settlement agreements with the Court and request that the Court reject the agreements. (Brantley, Adams, 50.) Docs. 47, 48, 49, Docs. Defendants, 128, 130, 131, 133; on the other hand, move for settlement approval. (Brantley, Doc. 138; Adams, Doc. 56.)x II. Discussion 1. Defendants' Motions for Settlement Approval Defendants maintain that the settlement be approved and the claims dismissed. the Court has repeatedly apprised agreements should The Court disagrees. Defendants, FLSA As settlements must be approved as fair and reasonable by the Court before they are enforceable. ex rel. U.S. 1982) . In examination, proposed See Lynn's Food Stores, Dep't of Labor, the typical the Court agreements do 679 FLSA must, not F.2d 1350, case, among contain pervasive global releases.2 Inc. as v. United States 1353-54 part other of (11th Cir. its things, fairness ensure confidentiality that clauses or See Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1242 (M.D. Fla. 2010) ("The district court should reject as unreasonable confidentiality in contravention provision, of the Ed., No. CV 415-169, 1 approval. In a Brantley, (Brantley, which FLSA."); The Court is Defendants Doc. notes filed 138.) Cantrell that an that unenforceable 2015 WL 10057707, for settlement approval (Brantley, 2 compromise v. at *2 amended Accordingly, contains and a operates Bryan Cty. Bd. of (S.D. Ga. Dec. 21, motion Defendants' for settlement original motion doc. 137) is DENIED AS MOOT. the Eleventh Circuit has declined to decide whether confidentiality clauses in FLSA settlements are per se unreasonable. See Rodrigues v. CNP of Sanctuary, LLC, 523 F. App'x 628, 629 (11th Cir. 2013) . 2015) (rejecting a proposed pervasive releases); Webb v. (CAR), 2011 WL settlement because CVS Caremark Corp., 6743284, at *3 (M.D. it No. Ga. 5:11-CV-106 Dec. 23, ("Although inconsequential in the typical civil case settlement entitled requires to employer's use a failing no judicial FLSA to claim comply (a with an matter the from omitted) to the to is not from the leverage and the Court has already denied Defendants' contain global "settles, releases. waives, releases and discharges 128-3; Adams, the Docs. agreements employment discrimination, 3 48-1, list 48-3.) all and As claims relationship, retaliation, all (Brantley, 48-2, request to The agreements also Under these releases, against the Defendants . . . ." parties' (citation the settlement agreements all contain confidentiality keep the agreements out of the public eye.3 claims, FLSA." a (internal quotation marks omitted)). clauses, unconnected arising 2011) (for which employer FLSA) release Here, liability review), contained each Plaintiff claims whatsoever Docs. 128-1, 128-2, examples of released arising claims harassment, out of based the on breach-of-contract The Court recognizes that by filing the agreements with the Court, the parties arguably waived the confidentiality provisions. Nevertheless, should the parties make another attempt at resolving these claims through settlement, the confidentiality provisions should be removed from the agreements before they are filed with the Court. claims, Doc. tort claims, and FLSA claims.4 (See, e.g., Brantley, that pervasive 128-1.) Although releases the are not Court has permitted warned in the parties FLSA settlements, Defendants and their counsel unwaveringly take the position that the agreements are acceptable law, and Defendants' enforceable capacity assent "the to [were] and counsel." Referencing assert contract, and reached, (Brantley, that parties consideration, agreement[s] And in motions because and valuable enforceable. the [] the their clear counsel and Plaintiffs' Defendants' Doc. are had the provided for unambiguous signed by all 138 at 4; Adams, an e-mail responding to contract agreements contract [s] in writing, Doc. remove the pervasive language, and Georgia parties 56 at 3-4.) counsel's request to counsel stated: We will not agree to back off from or delete the global release[s] in the agreements, which I believe [are] independently enforceable with or without Court approval. That said, for purposes of settlement approval in these cases only I am open to any suggested language you may have to put in the joint motion. Alternatively, we could enter into a supplemental agreement for purposes of court approval, while keeping the underlying agreements in place .... (Brantley, counsel's Doc. 133-1; Adams, arguments represent Doc. a 50-1.) Defendants' and their fundamental misunderstanding of the FLSA.5 4 The first paragraph pervasive language. (See, e.g., of each agreement Brantley, 6 also appears Doc. 128-1 1 1.) to contain Contrary to what not a negligible Defendants may believe, procedural court approval requirement. Rather, it is is an unavoidable prerequisite to the dismissal of an FLSA action and to agreement. the enforceability of an FLSA general, "AFLSA rights cannot otherwise waived because this settlement be abridged by contract or ^nullify the purposes' of would the statute and thwart the legislative policies to effectuate.'" Barrentine (1981)). v. Lynn's Food, Arkansas-Best As noted above, under the FLSA, 679 Freight In F.2d Sys., i t was designed at 450 1352 (quoting U.S. 728, 740 an employee may settle claims brought but only if a district court — or the Department of Labor — approves the settlement as fair and reasonable. See 5 Defendants' counsel's statement could also be interpreted as a proposed plan to skirt the law and the Court's clear directives. Giving Defendants' counsel the benefit of the doubt, the Court will assume that he did not intend his statement as such. But the parties and their counsel are warned that, not only are side-deal settlement agreements in this context not enforceable, they will not be tolerated by the Court. While the majority of the Court's comments in this Order are directed at Defendants and escaped scrutiny. as much a monster their counsel, Plaintiffs and their counsel have not The Court is fully aware that this settlement quagmire is of Plaintiffs' counsel's creation as it is Defendants' counsel's. When they advised Plaintiffs to sign the settlement agreements in these cases, Plaintiffs' counsel were undeniably aware that FLSA settlements require court approval and that global releases are not permitted. Plaintiffs' counsel served as counsel in Barnes v. Ferrell Electric, Inc., CV 113-056. There, the parties attempted to stipulate dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. This Court rejected that attempt, informed the parties that pervasive settlements are unacceptable in FLSA cases, informed them that sealing settlement agreements is typically not permitted, and directed them to file a motion to approve settlement, which they did. In fact, in this case, Plaintiffs' counsel cited Barnes in its filing that informed the Court that Defendants were not willing to jointly move for approval. (See Adams, Doc. 38.) Plaintiffs' counsel, therefore, their clients to sign agreements they knew would be unacceptable. a year later, the Court's advised Now, over their clients remain uncompensated and these matters linger on docket. id. at 1353-55. approved by Accordingly, neither the Department court remains unenforceable." That is, "the release of Dees, Labor an nor 706 F. Supp. FLSA the claim district 2d at 1237-38. an FLSA settlement between an employee and employer is enforceable only in a narrow circumstance: his employer for back wages, that of resolves the FLSA, a bona fide "If an employee sues if the parties propose a compromise dispute and furthers the purpose and if the district court approves the compromise, employer obtains an enforceable release." Because the confidentiality Defendants' agreements clauses motions and for settlement the Id. at 1238. submitted global of to the releases, Court the approval. contain Court The DENIES agreements signed by the parties remain unenforceable. 2. Plaintiffs' Motions to Consolidate Plaintiffs under Federal request Rule that of the Civil Court consolidate Procedure 42, these which cases allows a district court to consolidate cases when they "involve a common question of law or fact . . . ." rule is a codification of a Fed. R. Civ. trial court's P. 42(a). inherent "This managerial power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." 1492, 1495 Hendrix (11th v. Cir. Raybestos-Manhattan, 1985) (citation Inc., omitted) 776 F.2d (internal quotation marks Rule 42(a), omitted). In exercising its discretion under the district court must determine: [WJhether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion [are] overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all concerned of the singletrial, multiple-trial alternatives. Id. at 1495 193 (4th (quoting Arnold v. E. Air Lines, Cir. 1982)). pursuing claims Electric, Inc. Here, under and the in both cases, FLSA against Ferrell James Inc., based 681 F.2d 186, Plaintiffs Defendants on are Ferrell similar alleged violations. Moreover, the parties in both cases are represented by the same counsel. Accordingly, common questions because SDGa, of Defendants law do and not fact, oppose the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' because Fed. these R. cases Civ. consolidation, P. see involve 42, LR and 7.5, motions. 3. Discovery and Plaintiff Jasen Adams's Motion to Compel In Brantley, Brantley, Doc. discovery 49.) closed In Adams, the case pending the parties' in December however, 2014. when the Court arbitration over attorneys' nine days of discovery remained outstanding. 27, 35.) stay in discovery. Accordingly, November Indeed, in Adams, 2015, the in August (See Adams, (See stayed fees, Docs. following the expiration of the parties 2016, 9 continued Mr. Adams to engage in moved to compel the production Defendants therefore, of did certain not respond GRANTS Mr. SDGa. Defendants 2016. Discovery documents. to (Adams, this Doc. motion. The Adams's motion as UNOPPOSED. must with comply with respect to this the will OFFICIALLY CLOSE on November 14, ruling claims 51.) Court, See LR 7.5, by November brought in 4, Adams 2016. 4. Trial Date and Pretrial Motions Because the parties resolve these trial. Accordingly, parties claims meet consolidated and have through been unable settlement, to they will proceed to the Court ORDERS that lead counsel for the confer, proposed in person, pretrial order. and The prepare Counsel for Plaintiff has the a proposed order must be filed with the Court by 5:00 p.m. 2016. successfully joint, pretrial on November 30, responsibility to initiate compliance with this instruction. The form for the proposed pretrial order can be located at the Court's website, Court"/"Forms." requirements of A this www.gas.uscourts.gov, party's Order failure may result to in under comply "District with dismissal of the the complaint or answer or other sanctions determined appropriate by the Court. prepared The Court will not accept a proposed pretrial order only from telephone conversations. The proposed pretrial order must include a paragraph stating the date and location of the meeting, the duration of the meeting, 10 and the names of pretrial all orders counsel that or parties are not participating. consolidated Proposed (proposed jointly) will not be accepted without prior permission from the Court. All evidentiary objections and motions in limine that have not been resolved prior to the pretrial conference must be filed by 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. on December 2, on December 16, 2016. 2016. Responses The parties must be filed by are not permitted to file reply briefs in support of their motions in limine. The pretrial conference is scheduled for Wednesday, 4, 2017, for at 10:00 a.m. Monday, conference, approve, January the order. All Jury selection and trial are scheduled 9, Court reject, or 2017, will direct exhibits January (in at take 9:00 up amendment digital a.m. any of At the pending the format) pretrial motions proposed and an and pretrial exhibit list must be provided to the Court at the pretrial conference. Lead counsel for each party must attend the pretrial conference. Ill. For the Defendants' Adams, doc. consolidate Adams's reasons Conclusion explained above, motions for settlement approval 56). The (Brantley, motion to Court doc. compel DIRECTED to CONSOLIDATE GRANTS 134; (Adams, the (Brantley, Plaintiffs' Adams, doc. doc. 51). case number CV 114-181 11 Court doc. 138; motions 52), and The into DENIES to Jasen Clerk is Brantley v. Ferrell Electric, Inc., CV 114-022. filed in case number CV 114-022. MOOT Plaintiffs' docs. 131, motions 133; Adams, ORDER ENTERED to docs. at All Further, disapprove 49, future motions must be the Court DENIES AS settlement (Brantley, 50). Augusta, Georgia this (^<o day of September, 2016. HONOM^J. RAflDAL HALL UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 12
]]>
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.
