Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION

tltiOCT \8 '" 1'3f

,J.,)JJMH\CW\,:U!UE, LISA

)

t\.D~/t§itfp, PAUL NAYLOR,

)

MICHAEL W. RICE, BARBARA D. )

BAKER, ERSKINE BAKER, MARTIN )

CHAMBERS, FRANCES CHAMBLEE, )

JEFFERY S. CHANDLER, DONNA J. )

DOOLEY, JIMMY HAMILTON,

)

CAROLYNSUEHOGELAND,WENDY)

MENDEL, KATHY MOORE, JUDY S. )

OLIVER, BRUCE T. POE, TAMMY )

RENEE RICHEY, BETTY R. TIPTON )

CONSTANCE VINSON, and JENIFIER )

WYNN

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

) CaseNo.: 06-CV-_ _ _ _ __

)

WAYNE FARMS LLC., a Delaware )

Corporation doing business in Alabama, )
)

CV-06-P-2095-M

Defendant.

)

COMPLAINT

FILED
2006 Oct-19 PM 02:23 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated ("Plaintiffs"), by and through their counsel, for their Complaint against Defendant Wayne Farms LLC., (collectively "Wayne Farms" or "Defendant"), seek to recover for Wayne Farms' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and hereby state and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is a representative action brought pursuant to FLSA § 216(b) by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 15
production employees of Wayne Farms at its Albertville facility, located in Marshall County, Alabama, for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.
2. Wayne Farms operates a chicken processing plant in Albertville, Alabama ("Albertville facility"). The complained of unlawful compensation system at issue in this Complaint has affected Defendant's present and former hourly production employees at this location.
3. In JBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 126 S. Ct. 514 (2005), the United States Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a ruling that IBP's wage and hour policies- those at issue in this case- violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").
4. Wayne Farms uniformly denies hourly wages and overtime premium pay to its employees, by requiring them to perform "off the clock" work. Wayne Farms' deliberate failure to pay employees earned wages and overtime compensation violates federal law as set out in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
5. Plaintiffs perform multiple tasks, but are all victims to the same illegal policy and practice of failing to pay workers for all time worked, including unpaid, but compensable break periods, unpaid hourly wage times and unpaid overtime premium wage times.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. The FLSA authorizes court actions by private parties to recover damages for violation of the FLSA's wage and hour provisions. Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is based upon 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-37.
2

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 3 of 15
7. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), because Wayne Farms does business in this district and a substantial part of the unlawful conduct giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
PARTIES 8. Defendant, Wayne Farms LLC., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia. 9. Plaintiffs are current and former Wayne Farms employees who work(ed) at the Wayne Farms Albertville facility within the last three years, dating back to October 16, 2003, and can be generally categorized herein as "First Processing" and "Second Processing" employees. 10. First Processing generally includes those employees who work in an area of the plant where the product (chickens) is introduced into the plant and placed or hung on "the line" for killing, cleaning, disemboweling, and chilling. 11. Second Processing generally includes those employees who work in an area of the plant where after the product has completed First Processing, it is further processed, prepared, cut-up, marinated, deboned, weighed, sized, packed, loaded on trucks, etc. for delivery to plant customers. 12. Plaintiffs listed herein who primarily work in First Processing include: Jimmy W. Belue, Lisa Blankenship, Paul Naylor, and Michael W. Rice. 13. Plaintiffs listed herein who primarily work in Second Processing include: Barbara D. Baker, Erskine Baker, Martin Chambers, Frances Chamblee, JefferyS. Chandler, Donna J. Dooley, Jimmy Hamilton, Carolyn Sue Hogeland, Wendy Mendel, Kathy Moore, Judy S. Oliver, Bruce T. Poe, Tammy Renee Richey, Betty R. Tipton, Constance Vinson, and Jenifier Wynn.
3

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 4 of 15
14. Plaintiffs are residents and domiciled in the State of Alabama. Plaintiffs have concurrently filed their Consents to Become Party Plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See Exhibit A.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 15. As an integral and indispensable part of Plaintiffs' jobs, Plaintiffs are required to pass through security when entering and leaving the facility. Plaintiffs' are required to have their employment status verified and their arrival and departures documented as well as submit to searches of the person and personal possessions. Plaintiffs aver they are not compensated for the time it takes security to clear them and allow them into the facility and the compensable time afterwards prior to the commencement of production work. 16. Plaintiffs go to a designated area to receive required clothing and/or personal protective equipment (PPE) that is required for the work to be performed. The employees are required to don certain equipment before moving into the production areas. The employees are required to perform washing activities associated with preparing for work in the production area. And depending on whether the employee works in First Processing or Second Processing, the employee may be required to acquire special tools for the work to be performed. During the course of this process, the employee then must walk a significant distance to arrive at the respective workstations on the line. 17. When Plaintiffs leave the line for unpaid breaks or at the end of their shift, they again walk a considerable distance to their respective doffing area where they remove their personal protective equipment, wash or sanitize themselves, their personal
4

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 5 of 15
protective equipment, sanitary clothing, and/or equipment or tools and return various clothes, personal protective equipment, equipment or tools to the proper areas.
18. Defendant Wayne Farms owns and operates poultry facilities in Albertville, Alabama. The unlawful compensation system at issue in the Complaint has affected Defendant's former and present hourly production employees at this location.
19. Under Wayne Farms' wage compensation system, Wayne Farms pays Plaintiffs and others similarly situated employees only regularly scheduled time that they are on the production assembly line or in production areas under a system known as master time, master key, line time or gang time, collectively referred to herein as "master time". Conversely, as a matter of policy and practice, Wayne Farms does not pay its hourly employees for required pre-production line and post-production line activities that are necessary and integral to their overall employment responsibilities, such as the time it takes to clear security, donning and doffing protective and sanitary equipment, cleaning and sanitizing equipment as well as themselves, walking to and from security and the production line from their locker or dressing area after already performing compensable activities, and waiting in line to return required supplies, tools and other equipment needed for line activities. In addition, Wayne Farms does not pay its employees for time spent waiting at the line, prior to the line start up. Plaintiffs are required to report to duty before the start of the master time clock and required to continue work after the master time clock has stopped.
20. During the course of the day, Plaintiffs are provided unpaid breaks requiring them to walk considerable distances where they remove sanitary clothing and personal protection equipment for their break. The remaining time allowed for the break is further shortened by the requirement for the employee to wash and sanitize, don his or
5

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 6 of 15
her sanitary clothing and personal protection equipment and return to the workstation. Plaintiffs assert these unpaid breaks are compensable. Alternatively if the total unpaid break is not deemed compensable Plaintiffs allege they are owed compensation for the walk time prior to and after unpaid breaks, the time spent donning and doffing clothing and equipment pre and post break respectively, and the time spent washing and/or waiting to wash themselves and their equipment.
21. Defendant deducts from Plaintiffs daily time worked, without regard for the actual time spent on break, two (2) uncompensated breaks of fixed duration.
22. The time for which Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees are paid is significantly less than the time they spend at work between the time they begin their integral, essential and indispensable work duties and the time they arrive at their workstations on the line. The work time for which Plaintiffs are not paid include, but are not limited to: (1) changing into the protective required work uniforms, sanitary clothing and protective safety equipment that can include, among other things (depending on the task and whether First or Second Processing): ear plugs, smocks, work pants and shirts; safety jump suits; safety boots; hair nets; face nets; hard hats; aprons; belts with holsters and knifes; and hand and arm protections; and (2) walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas; washing activities; and (3) breaks that are effectively compensable .
23. The walking time for which Plaintiffs are not paid occurs after the beginning of the employee's first principal activity and before the end of the employee's last principal activity.
24. The required protective work uniforms, sanitary clothing and protective safety equipment that Plaintiffs must wear, and for which they are not paid for donning
6

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 7 of 15
and doffing times, is required by Wayne Farms and/or by government regulation. Plaintiffs' jobs are dangerous and involve serious health and safety risks. The circumstances of Plaintiffs' jobs, including vital considerations of health and hygiene, require them to wear the protective work uniforms, sanitary clothing and protective safety equipment. These donning, doffing, washing activities, compensable unpaid breaks and walking duties all add up to a significant amount of time every day for which Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are not paid.
25. In addition to depriving Plaintiffs and others similarly situated of hourly wages for compensable time pursuant to the FLSA, Defendant Wayne Farms' failure to accurately account for and report all compensable time worked by the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, and has deprived Plaintiffs and others similarly situated of what would otherwise be overtime pay, pursuant to the FLSA.
COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 26. Plaintiffs bring Count I, the FLSA claim, as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). In addition to the claims of individually named Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs bring this action as representatives of all similarly situated former and current employees of the Albertville facility. The potential class of"opt-in" employees can be defined as: All current and former hourly employees of Defendants who worked at the Albertville facility since October 16,2003, and who were not paid for all the time spent performing compensable work-related tasks or legally compensable time, including, but not limited to authorized unpaid break times, donning and doffing times, washing activity times, time associated with passing through security check points and walking to changing areas and time walking to security and passing through security at the end of the day and walking times to and from break areas or donning and doffing areas, and including time compensable at regular hourly wages, as well as overtime pay for these employees.
7

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 8 of 15
27. The FLSA claims may be pursued by those who opt-in to this case, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
28. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, seek relief on a collective basis challenging, among other FLSA violations, Defendant's practice of failing to accurately record all hours worked and failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including overtime compensation.
29. The number and identity of other Plaintiffs yet to opt-in and consent to be party Plaintiffs may be determined from the records of Defendant, and potential class members may easily and quickly be notified of the pendency of this action.
30. On information and belief, the Albertville facility employs approximately 500 hourly wage employees who potentially have FLSA claims similar to the claims set out herein. Consequently, joinder of all collective action members in a single action is impracticable.
31. Potential collective action members may be informed of the pendency of this class action through direct maiL
32. There are questions of fact and law common to the class that predominates over any questions affecting only individual members. The questions of law and fact common to the class arising from Defendant's actions include, without limitation, the following:
a) Whether Plaintiffs were compensated for time spent clearing security and time spent walking from security to their changing areas and from changing areas to security;
b) Whether the security activities at issue are integral or indispensable to Defendant's business activities;
8

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 9 of 15
c) Whether Plaintiffs were compensated for time spent donning and doffing clothing and protective gear, washing, and walking to and from their job posts;
d) Whether the donning, doffing and washing activities at issue are integral or indispensable to Defendant's business activities;
e) Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for time spent donning and doffing, washing activity time, and walking time to and from "the line";
f) Whether Plaintiffs' donning, doffing, washing activity, and walking time is integral and indispensable to their principal activities;
g) Whether Defendant failed to pay employees for unpaid breaks that were effectively compensable.
h) Whether Defendant's compensation policy and practice accurately accounts for the time Plaintiffs are actually working;
i) Whether Defendant's compensation policy and practice is illegal;
j) Whether Defendant had a policy and practice of willfully failing to record and compensate employees for all time worked; and
k) Whether Defendant failed to accurately record all compensable time, resulting in a failure to compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of regular hourly wages and overtime pay, in violation of Defendant's policies and procedures and the mandate of the FLSA.
33. The questions set forth above predominate over any questions affecting
only individual persons, and a class action is superior with respect to considerations of
consistency, economy, efficiency, fairness and equity, to other available methods for the
fair and efficient adjudication of the state law claims.
34. The Collective Action Representatives' claims are typical of those of the
similarly situated employees in that these employees have been employed in the same or
similar positions as the Collective Action Representatives and were subject to the same or similar unlawful practices as the Collective Action Representatives.
9

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 10 of 15

35. A collective action is the appropriate method for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds

generally applicable to the similarly situated current and former employees. The

presentation of separate actions by individual similarly situated current or former

employees could create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, establish

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant, and/or substantially impair or impede

the ability of Collective Action members to protect their interests.

36. The Collective Action Representatives are adequate representatives of the

similarly situated current and former employees because they are employees of the same

processing plant and their interests do not conflict with the interests of the other similarly

situated current and former employees they seek to represent. The interests of the

members of the class of employees will be fairly and adequately protected by the

Collective Action Representatives and their undersigned counsel, who have extensive

experience prosecuting complex class action lawsuits.

37. Maintenance of this action as a collective action is a fair and efficient

method for the adjudication of this controversy. It would be impracticable and

undesirable for each member of the collective action who suffered harm to bring a

separate action. In addition, the maintenance of separate actions would place a

substantial and unnecessary burden on the courts and could result in inconsistent

adjudications, while a single collective action can determine, with judicial economy, the

rights of all collective action members.

COUNT I

Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

(Brought Against Defendant by AU Individually-Named Plaintiffs and on Behalf of

·

All Others Similarly Situated)

10

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 11 of 15
38. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 37 as set forth above as if fully restated herein.
39. At all time material herein, Plaintiffs have been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq.
40. The individually named Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees are victims of a uniform and facility-wide compensation policy and practice, in violation of the FLSA.
41. Wayne Farms violated the FLSA by failing to account for all compensable time of its employees that resulted in a failure to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for compensable hourly wages and overtime premium pay.
42. Wayne Farms violated the FLSA by failing to pay for time donning and doffing essential required equipment, integral to the principle work activity.
43. Wayne Farms failed to account for and pay for time walking to and from the line to break areas and/or donning and doffing areas.
44. Wayne Farms failed to account for and pay for time spent clearing security and for time walking to and from security to donning and doffing areas.
45. Wayne Farms failed to account for and pay for time allocated as unpaid breaks. In the alternative, Wayne Farms failed to pay for walk time to and from unpaid meal break areas, time spent donning and doffing on unpaid meal breaks, and washing activities associated with meal breaks.
46. In perpetrating these unlawful practices, Wayne Farms has also willfully failed to keep accurate records for all of the time worked by its hourly employees.
47. The FLSA regulates, among other things, the payment of overtime pay by employers whose employees are engaged in commerce, or engaged in the production of
11

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 12 of 15
goods for commerce, or employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(l).
48. Wayne Farms was, and is, subject to the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA because it is an enterprise engaged in commerce and its employees are engaged in commerce.
49. Section 13 ofthe FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 213, exempts certain categories of employees from overtime pay obligations. None of the FLSA exemptions apply to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must be paid overtime pay in accordance with the FLSA.
50. Wayne Farms' failure to accurately record compensable work time was willfully perpetrated. Wayne Farms has not acted in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to believe its actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and as a result thereof, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees are entitled to recover an award of liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid hourly wages and overtime premium pay described above pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Alternatively, should the Court find Wayne Farms did not act willfully in failing to pay all hourly wages and overtime premium pay wages, Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate.
51. As a result of the aforesaid willful violations of the FLSA's overtime provisions, overtime compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Wayne Farms from Plaintiffs for which Wayne Farms is liable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
52. Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees are entitled to damages equal to the mandated overtime premium pay within the three years preceding the filing
12

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 13 of 15
ofthis Complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling, because Wayne Farms acted willfully and knew, or showed reckless disregard of whether, its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA.
53. Pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), successful Plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement ofthe costs and attorney's fees expended in successfully prosecuting an action for unpaid wages and overtime wages.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Court grant to the Plaintiffs the following relief:
a) At the earliest possible time, issue an Order allowing Notice or issue such Court supervised Notice to all similarly situated current and former Wayne Farms hourly employees (working at the Wayne Farms, Albertville location in the last three years) of this action and their rights to participate in this action. Such Notice shall inform all similarly situated current and qualified former employees of the pendency of this action, the nature of this action, and of their right to "opt in" to this action if they worked "off the clock" for times not paid, including time that may be paid at overtime rates.
b) Issue an Order, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, declaring that Defendant Wayne Farms' actions, as described in the Complaint, are unlawful and in violation of the FLSA and applicable regulations and are and were willful as defined in the FLSA;
c) Issue an Order directing and requiring Defendant Wayne Farms to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees damages in the form of reimbursement for unpaid hourly and premium overtime wages (past
13

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 14 of 15
and future) for all time spent performing compensable work for which they were not paid pursuant to the rate provided by the FLSA; d) Issue an Order directing and requiring Defendant Wayne Farms to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA in an amount equal to, and in addition to the amount of wages and overtime wages owed to them; e) Issue and Order directing Defendant Wayne Farms to reimburse Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees for the costs and attorneys fees expended in the course of litigating this action, pre-judgment and postjudgment interest; f) Provide Plaintiffs with such other and further relief, as the Court deems just and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL All Plaintiffs hereby request trial by jury of all issues liable by jury under Alabama and federal law.

Respectfully submitted this the ~~~ day of ~

2006.

COCHRAN, CHERRY, GIVENS, SMITH, LANE & TAYLOR, P.C.

14

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 1 Filed 10/18/06 Page 15 of 15 Attorney for Plaintiffs 163 West Main Street P.O. Box 927 Dothan, AL 36302 (334) 793-1555 (334) 793-8280 (fax)
Defendant may be served at: The Corporation Company o/b/o Wayne Farms LLC- Albertville Plant 2000 Interstate Park Drive Ste 204 Montgomery, AL 36109
15

 
 Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26

Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 21

FILED
2007 Feb-15 PM 04:59 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA,
MIDDLE DIVISION

JIMMY W. BELUE, LISA

§

BLANKENSHIP,PAUL

§

NAYLOR, MICHAEL W.

§

RICE, BARBARA D. BAKER, §

ERSKINE BAKER, MARTIN §

CHAMBERS, FRANCES

§

CHAMBLEE, JEFFERYS.

§

CHANDLER, DONNA J.

§

DOOLEY, JIMMY

§

HAMILTON, CAROLYN SUE §

HOGELAND,WENDY

§

MENDEL,KATBYMOORE, §

JUDY S. OLIVER, BRUCE T. §

POE, TAMMY RENEE

§

RICHEY, BETTY R. TIPTON, §

CONSTANCE VINSON, and

§

JENIFIER WYNN, on behalf §

of themselves and all others

§

similarly situated,

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

v.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS, LLC,

§

§

Defendant.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:06-cv-02095-RDP

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

("Plaintiffs"), by and through their counsel, for their Complaint against

,

I

'I I' '

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 21
Defendant Wayne Farms LLC., (collectively "Wayne Farms" or "Defendant"), seek to recover for Wayne Farms' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and hereby state and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is a representative action brought pursuant to FLSA § 216(b) by Plaintiffs on behalf ofthemselves and all other similarly situated current and former production employees of Wayne Farms at its Albertville facility, located in Marshall County, Alabama, for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief, including equitable tolling, the Court may deem appropriate. 2. Wayne Farms operates a chicken processing plant in Albertville, Alabama ("Albertville facility"). The complained of unlawful compensation system at issue in this Complaint has affected Defendant's present and former hourly production employees at this location. 3. IniBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 126 S. Ct. 514 (2005), the United States Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a ruling that IBP's wage and hour

2

'

I

'I I' '.

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 3 of 21
policies- those at issue in this case- violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. of 1938 ("FLSA").
4. Wayne Farms uniformly denies hourly wages and overtime premium pay to its employees, by requiring them to perform "off the clock" work. Wayne Farms' deliberate failure to pay employees earned wages and overtime compensation violates federal law as set out in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
5. Plaintiffs perform multiple tasks, but are all victims to the same illegal policy and practice of failing to pay workers for all time worked, including unpaid, but compensable break periods, unpaid hourly wage times and unpaid overtime premium wage times.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. The FLSA authorizes court actions by private parties to recover damages for violation of the FLSA's wage and hour provisions. Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is based upon 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-37. 7. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), because Wayne Farms does business in this district and a substantial

3

,

I

'I I :

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 4 of 21
part ofthe unlawful conduct giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
PARTIES 8. Defendant, Wayne Farms LLC., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia. 9. Plaintiffs are current and former Wayne Farms employees who work(ed) at the Wayne Farms Albertville facility within the last three years, dating back to October 16, 2003, and can be generally categorized herein as "First Processing" and "Second Processing" employees. 10. First Processing generally includes those employees who work in an area of the plant where the product (chickens) is introduced into the plant and placed or hung on "the line" for killing, cleaning, disemboweling, and chilling. 11. Second Processing generally includes those employees who work in an area of the plant where after the product has completed First Processing, it is further processed, prepared, cut-up, marinated, deboned, weighed, sized, packed, loaded on trucks, etc. for delivery to plant customers.

4

'

I

'! j~' I.

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 5 of 21

12. Plaintiffs listed herein who primarily work in First Processing include: Jimmy W. Belue, Lisa Blankenship, Paul Naylor, and Michael W. Rice.
13. Plaintiffs listed herein who primarily work in Second Processing include: Barbara D. Baker, Erskine Baker, Martin Chambers, Frances Chamblee, JefferyS. Chandler, Donna J. Dooley, Jimmy Hamilton, Carolyn Sue Hogeland, Wendy Mendel, Kathy Moore, Judy S. Oliver, Bruce T. Poe, Tammy Renee Richey, Betty R. Tipton, Constance Vinson, and Jenifier Wynn.
14. Plaintiffs are residents and domiciled in the State of Alabama. Plaintiffs have concurrently filed their Consents to Become Party Plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See Exhibit A.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 15. As an integral and indispensable part of Plaintiffs' jobs, Plaintiffs are required to pass through security when entering and leaving the facility. Plaintiffs' are required to have their employment status verified and their arrival and departures documented as well as submit to searches of the person and personal possessions. Plaintiffs aver they are not compensated for the time it takes security to clear them and allow them into the facility

5

,

I

'I I' I

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 6 of 21
and the compensable time afterwards prior to the commencement of production work.
16. Plaintiffs go to a designated area to receive required clothing and/or personal protective equipment (PPE) that is required for the work to be performed. The employees are required to don certain equipment before moving into the production areas. The employees are required to perform washing activities associated with preparing for work in the production area. And depending on whether the employee works in First Processing or Second Processing, the employee may be required to acquire special tools for the work to be performed. During the course of this process, the employee then must walk a significant distance to arrive at the respective workstations on the line.
17. When Plaintiffs leave the line for unpaid breaks or at the end of their shift, they again walk a considerable distance to their respective doffing area where they remove their personal protective equipment, wash or sanitize themselves, their personal protective equipment, sanitary clothing, and/or equipment or tools and return various clothes, personal protective equipment, equipment or tools to the proper areas.
6
11 I .

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 7 of 21
18. Defendant Wayne Farms owns and operates poultry facilities in Albertville, Alabama. The unlawful compensation system at issue in the Complaint has affected Defendant's former and present hourly production employees at this location.
19. Under Wayne Farms' wage compensation system, Wayne Farms pays Plaintiffs and others similarly situated employees only regularly scheduled time that they are on the production assembly line or in production areas under a system known as master time, master key, line time or gang time, collectively referred to herein as "master time". Conversely, as a matter of policy and practice, Wayne Farms does not pay its hourly employees for required pre-production line and post-production line activities that are necessary and integral to their overall employment responsibilities, such as the time it takes to clear security, donning and doffing protective and sanitary equipment, cleaning and sanitizing equipment as well as themselves, walking to and from security and the production line from their locker or dressing area after already performing compensable activities, and waiting in line to return required supplies, tools and other equipment needed for line activities. In addition, Wayne Farms . does not pay its employees for time spent waiting at the line, prior to the line

7

,

I

'I I' I

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 8 of 21
start up. Plaintiffs are required to report to duty before the start of the master time clock and required to continue work after the master time clock has stopped.
20. During the course ofthe day, Plaintiffs are provided unpaid breaks requiring them to walk considerable distances where they remove sanitary clothing and personal protection equipment for their break. The remaining time allowed for the break is further shortened by the requirement for the employee to wash and sanitize, don his or her sanitary clothing and personal protection equipment and return to the workstation. Plaintiffs assert these unpaid breaks are compensable. Alternatively if the total unpaid break is not deemed compensable Plaintiffs allege they are owed compensation for the walk time prior to and after unpaid breaks, the time spent donning and doffmg clothing and equipment pre and post break respectively, and the time spent washing and/or waiting to wash themselves and their equipment.
21. Defendant deducts from Plaintiffs daily time worked, without regard for the actual time spent on break, two (2) uncompensated breaks of fixed duration.

8

,

I

'I I' :

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 9 of 21
22. The time for which Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees are paid is significantly less than the time they spend at work between the time they begin their integral, essential and indispensable work duties and the time they arrive at their workstations on the line. The work time for which Plaintiffs are not paid include, but are not limited to: ( 1) changing into the protective required work uniforms, sanitary clothing and protective safety equipment that can include, among other things (depending on the task and whether First or Second Processing): ear plugs, smocks, work pants and shirts; safety jump suits; safety boots; hair nets; face nets; hard hats; aprons; belts with holsters and knifes; and hand and arm protections; and (2) walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas; washing activities; and (3) breaks that are effectively compensable .
23. The walking time for which Plaintiffs are not paid occurs after the beginning of the employee's first principal activity and before the end of the employee's last principal activity.
24. The required protective work uniforms, sanitary clothing and protective safety equipment that Plaintiffs must wear, and for which they are not paid for donning and doffing times, is required by Wayne Farms and/or

9

'

I

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 10 of 21
by government regulation. Plaintiffs' jobs are dangerous and involve serious health and safety risks. The circumstances of Plaintiffs' jobs, including vital considerations of health and hygiene, require them to wear the protective work uniforms, sanitary clothing and protective safety equipment. These donning, doffing, washing activities, compensable unpaid breaks and walking duties all add up to a significant amount oftime every day for which Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are not paid.
25. In addition to depriving Plaintiffs and others similarly situated of hourly wages for compensable time pursuant to the FLSA, Defendant Wayne Farms' failure to accurately account for and report all compensable time worked by the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, has deprived Plaintiffs and others similarly situated of what would otherwise be overtime pay, pursuant to the FLSA.
COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 26. Plaintiffs bring Count I, the FLSA claim, as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). In addition to the claims of individually named Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs bring this action as representatives of all similarly situated former and current employees of the Albertville facility. The potential class of"opt-in" employees can be defined as:

10

I.

I

'I I I

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 11 of 21
All current and former hourly 1st and 2nd processing employees of Defendants, paid under a master time compensation system in which individuals' time card punches are not the basis for starting and ending hours worked, who worked at the Albertville facility since October 16, 2003, and who were not paid for all the time spent performing compensable workrelated tasks or legally compensable time, including, but not limited to authorized unpaid break times, donning and doffing times, washing activity times, time associated with passing through security check points and walking to changing areas and time walking to security and passing through security at the end of the day and walking times to and from break areas or donning and doffing areas, and including time compensable at regular hourly wages, as well as overtime pay for these employees.
27. The FLSA claims may be pursued by those who opt-in to this
case, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
28. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
employees, seek relief on a collective basis challenging, among other FLSA
violations, Defendant's practice of failing to accurately record all hours
worked and failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including
overtime compensation.
29. The number and identity of other Plaintiffs yet to opt-in and
consent to be party Plaintiffs may be determined from the records of
Defendant, and potential class members may easily and quickly be notified
of the pendency of this action.
11
'I I' '.

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 12 of 21
30. On information and belief, the Albertville facility employs
approximately 500 hourly wage employees who potentially have FLSA
claims similar to the claims set out herein. Consequently, joinder of all
collective action members in a single action is impracticable.
31. Potential collective action members may be informed of the
pendency of this class action through direct mail.
32. There are questions of fact and law common to the class that
predominates over any questions affecting only individual members. The
questions oflaw and fact common to the class arising from Defendant's
actions include, without limitation, the following:
a) Whether Plaintiffs were compensated for time spent clearing security and time spent walking from security to their changing areas and from changing areas to security;
b) Whether the security activities at issue are integral or indispensable to Defendant's business activities;
c) Whether Plaintiffs were compensated for time spent donning and doffing clothing and protective gear, washing, and walking to and from their job posts;
d) Whether the donning, doffing and washing activities at issue are integral or indispensable to Defendant's business activities;
e) Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for time spent donning and doffing, washing activity time, and walking time
to and from "the line"·,

12

,

I

'I I '

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 13 of 21
f) Whether Plaintiffs' donning, doffing, washing activity, and walking time is integral and indispensable to their principal activities;
g) Whether Defendant failed to pay employees for unpaid breaks that were effectively compensable.
h) Whether Defendant's compensation policy and practice accurately accounts for the time Plaintiffs are actually working;
i) Whether Defendant's compensation policy and practice is illegal;
j) Whether Defendant had a policy and practice of willfully failing to record and compensate employees for all time worked; and
k) Whether Defendant failed to accurately record all compensable time, resulting in a failure to compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of regular hourly wages and overtime pay, in violation of Defendant's policies and procedures and the mandate of the FLSA.
33. The questions set forth above predominate over any questions
affecting only individual persons, and a class action is superior with respect
to considerations of consistency, economy, efficiency, fairness and equity, to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the federal
law claims.
34. The Collective Action Representatives' claims are typical of
those of the similarly situated employees in that these employees have been

13

,

I

I I

I

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 14 of 21
employed in the same or similar positions as the Collective Action Representatives and were subject to the same or similar unlawful practices as the Collective Action Representatives.
35. A collective action is the appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the similarly situated current and former employees. The presentation of separate actions by individual similarly situated current or former employees could create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant, and/or substantially impair or impede the ability of Collective Action members to protect their interests.
36. The Collective Action Representatives are adequate representatives of the similarly situated current and former employees because they are employees of the same processing plant and their interests do not conflict with the interests of the other similarly situated current and former employees they seek to represent. The interests of the members of the class of employees will be fairly and adequately protected by the Collective Action Representatives and their undersigned counsel, who have extensive experience prosecuting complex class action lawsuits.

14

'

I

'I I' '

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 15 of 21

37. Maintenance of this action as a collective action is a fair and efficient method for the adjudication of this controversy. It would be impracticable and undesirable for each member of the collective action who suffered harm to bring a separate action. In addition, the maintenance of separate actions would place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the courts and could result in inconsistent adjudications, while a single collective action can determine, with judicial economy, the rights of all collective action members.
COUNT I Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (Brought Against Defendant by All Individually-Named Plaintiffs and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated) 38. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 37 as set forth above as if fully restated herein. 39. At all time material herein, Plaintiffs have been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq. 40. The individually named Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees are victims of a uniform and facility-wide compensation policy and practice, in violation of the FLSA.

15

•

I

1' I-

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 16 of 21

41. Wayne Farms violated the FLSA by failing to account for all compensable time of its employees that resulted in a failure to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for compensable hourly wages and overtime premmm pay.
42. Wayne Farms violated the FLSA by failing to pay for time donning and doffmg essential required equipment, integral to the principle work activity.
43. Wayne Farms failed to account for and pay for time walking to and from the line to break areas and/or donning and doffing areas.
44. Wayne Farms failed to account for and pay for time spent clearing security and for time walking to and from security to donning and doffing areas.
45. Wayne Farms failed to account for and pay for time allocated as unpaid breaks. In the alternative, Wayne Farms failed to pay for walk time to and from unpaid meal break areas, time spent donning and doffing on unpaid meal breaks, and washing activities associated with meal breaks.
46. In perpetrating these unlawful practices, Wayne Farms has also willfully failed to keep accurate records for all of the time worked by its hourly employees.

16

,

I

'I I' '

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 17 of 21

47. The FLSA regulates, among other things, the payment of overtime pay by employers whose employees are engaged in commerce, or engaged in the production of goods for commerce, or employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).
48. Wayne Farms was, and is, subject to the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA because it is an enterprise engaged in commerce and its employees are engaged in commerce.
49. Section 13 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 213, exempts certain categories of employees from overtime pay obligations. None of the FLSA exemptions apply to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must be paid overtime pay in accordance with the FLSA.
50. Wayne Farms' failure to accurately record compensable work time was willfully perpetrated. Wayne Farms has not acted in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to believe its actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and as a result thereof, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees are entitled to recover an award ofliquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid hourly wages and overtime premium pay described above pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29

17

,

I

'I I' '

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 18 of 21
U.S.C. § 216(b). Alternatively, should the Court find Wayne Farms did not act willfully in failing to pay all hourly wages and overtime premium pay wages, Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate.
51. As a result of the aforesaid willful violations of the FLSA's overtime provisions, overtime compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Wayne Farms from Plaintiffs for which Wayne Farms is liable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
52. Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees are entitled to damages equal to the mandated overtime premium pay within the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling, because Wayne Farms acted willfully and knew, or showed reckless disregard of whether, its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA.
53. Pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), successful Plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement of the costs and attorney's fees expended in successfully prosecuting an action for unpaid wages and overtime wages.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Court grant to the Plaintiffs the following relief:

18

,

I

l' II

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 19 of 21
a) At the earliest possible time, issue an Order allowing Notice or issue such Court supervised Notice to all similarly situated current and former Wayne Farms hourly employees (working at the Wayne Farms, Albertville location in the last three years) of this action and their rights to participate in this action. Such Notice shall inform all similarly situated current and qualified former employees of the pendency of this action, the nature of this action, and of their right to "opt in" to this action if they worked "offthe clock" for times not paid, including time that may be paid at overtime rates.
b) Issue an Order, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, declaring that Defendant Wayne Farms' actions, as described in the Complaint, are unlawful and in violation of the FLSA and applicable regulations and are and were willful as defined in the FLSA;
c) Issue an Order directing and requiring Defendant Wayne Farms to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees damages in the form of reimbursement for unpaid hourly and premium overtime wages (past and future) for all time spent

19

I

I

'I I I

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 20 of 21
performing compensable work for which they were not paid pursuant to the rate provided by the FLSA; d) Issue an Order directing and requiring Defendant Wayne Farms to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA in an amount equal to, and in addition to the amount of wages and overtime wages owed to them; e) Issue and Order directing Defendant Wayne Farms to reimburse Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees for the costs and attorneys fees expended in the course of litigating this action, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; f) Provide Plaintiffs with such other and further relief, as the Court deems just and equitable.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL All Plaintiffs hereby request trial by jury of all issues triable by jury under Alabama and federal law.

20

I

I

'I I I

Case 4:06-cv-02095-RDP Document 26 Filed 02/15/07 Page 21 of 21

Dated: February 15, 2007
-andLance H. Swanner Samuel A. Cherry, Jr. THE COCHRAN FIRM, P.C. 163 W. Main Street P.O. Box 927 Dothan, AL 36302 (334) 793-1555 (Phone) (334) 793-8280 (fax)

Respectfully submitted, THE COCHRAN FIRM, P.C. Is/ Robert J. Camp ROBERT J. CAMP BERNARD D. NOMBERG 505 North 201h Street, Suite 825 Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 930-6900 (Phone) (205) 930-6910 (Fax)
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs

21

,

I

I I '

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 1 Filed 11/20/07 Page 1 of 4 Page 1 of3

FILED
2007 Nov-13 PM 03:54 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

FOR THE UNITED STATeS JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MVlTIOISTRICT UnGATIOH

"IAL .ILH".... PANEL
on MULTIDISTRICf LITIGATION

IN RE: WAYNE FARMS LLC FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT LITIGATION

UNITED STATES JUDICIAl PANEL ON MULTIDlSl'RICT LITIGATION 23;35 qn -Opw13-3118
FILED CLERK'S OFFICE
MDL No. 1872

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the entire Paael: Common defendant Wayne Farms LLC (Wayne Farms) has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings ofthis litigation in the Southern District ofMississippi. Plaintiffs in all actions support the motion.
This litigation currently consists oftwelve actions listed on Schedule A and pending in four districts as follows: four actions each in the Middle District ofAlabama and the Northern District of Alabama, and two actions each in the Northern District ofGeorgia and the Southern District of Mississippi.
After considering al1 argument ofcOlDlsel. we find that these twelve actions involve common questions offact, and that centralization under Section 1401 in the Southern District ofMississippi will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share factual questions arising out ofsimiJar allegations that certain Wayne Farms employees are entitled to comPensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.c. § 201, e/ seq. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent rulings on pretrial motions, including those with respect to certification of collective actions; and conserve the resources ofthe parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
Given that the actions are pending in nearby federal Judicial districts in Alabama. Georgia, and Mississippi, any ofthe involved districts would be convenient for the parties and witnesses. We are persuaded that the Southern District of Mississippi is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. The Southern District of Mississippi has been advancing the actions efficiently with a . large numberofpotential claimants. Additionally, all parties support centralization in this district.
IT IS TIIEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Southern District ofMississippi are transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi and, with the consent ofthat court, assigned to the Honorable Keith Starrett for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on Schedule A.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 1 Filed 11/20/07 Page 2 of 4 Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 1 Filed 11/05/2007 Page 2 of 3

.PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

D. Lowell Jensen : Robert L. Miller, Jr. . David R. Hansen

J. Frederick Motz Kathryn H. Vratil Anthony J. Scirica

ATRUE COpy, I HEREBY CERTIFY.
~ C5~

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 1 Filed 11/20/07 Page 3 of 4 Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 1 Filed 11/05/2007 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: WAYNE FARMS LLC FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT LmGATION

MDLNo.1872

SCHEDULE A
Middle District ofAlabama
Samuel Adams, el aI. v. Wayne Farms LLC, C.A. No. 1:06·950 Sonya P. Adams, et at v. Wayne Farms LLC, C.A. No. 1:07·296 Darren Anderson, et a1. v. Wayne Farms LLC, C.A. No. 2:06·95 t Amos Akings, et al. v. Wayne Farms LLC, C.A. No. 2:07-297
Northern District of Alabama
Jimmy W. Belue, et al. v. Wayne Farms LLC, C.A. No. 4:06·2095
Robert Thomas Dunn, et al. v. Wayne Farms LLC, C.A. No. 4;07-647 James E. Bolden, et al. v. WaYne Farms LLC, C.A. No. 5:06-2096
Pamela M. Allen, et al. v. Wayne Farms LLC, et aJ., C.A. No. 5:07-639
Northern District ofGeorgia
v. Christie Norman, et al. v. Wayne Farms LLC, C.A. No. 1:07-1154
Joey Tate, et al. Wayne Farins LLC, C.A. No. 2:07-55
Southern District of Mjssissiwi
April Agee, et al. v. Wayne Farms LLC, et ai., C.A. No. 2:06-268 Eula M. Keyes, et al. v. Wayne Farms LLC, C.A.No. 2:07-29

, '.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 1 Filed 11/20/07 Page 4 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
· SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI R,EeEl VED Jackson, Mississippi

J, T, Noblin CLERK
245 E. Capitol St., Suite 316 Jackson. MS 39201
TELEPHONE
(601) 965-4439

• NOV -9 PH.,,; 3,November 6,2007

Perry D, Mathis, Clerk
U. S, District Court 140 Hugo L. Black U,S. Courthouse 1729 5th Avenue North Birmingham, Al 35203

DIVISIONS SOUTHERN at Gulfport
2012 15th Street, Suite 403 Zip 39501
HATTIESBURG at Hattiesburg 701 Main St., Suite 200
Zip 39401
JACKSON at Jackson 245 E. Capitol, Suite 316 Zip 39201
EASTERN & WESTERN at Jackson 245 E, Capitol. Suite 316 Zip 39201

RE: MOL No. 1872 ··IN RE: Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation

Title Case(s): Jimmy W. Belue, et al v. Wayne Farms Robert Thomas Dunn, et al v. Wayne Farms James E. Bolden, et al v. Wayne Farms Pamela M. Allen. et al v. Wayne Farms
Dear Clerk:

Your Case Number(s): New Case Number(s):

CA No. 4:06-2095 CA No. 2:07cv1004KS·MTP 1(DP

CA No. 4:07-647 CA No. 5:06-2096 CA No. 5:07·639

CA No. 2:07cv1005KS·MTP 'in p
-rrt: CA No. 2:07cv1006KS·MTP
W CA No. 2:07cv1007KS·MTP

........

Enclosed is a certified copy of the Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferring the above entitled actions to the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division. The cases have been assigned to Honorable Keith Starrett for coordinated or consolidated pretrial processing pursuant to 28 USC §1407.

If the cases are electronically filed. please e-mail the PDF documents, as separate files. including a PDF copy of the docket sheet to interdistricttransfecmssd@mssd.uscourts.gOY. If cases were not electronically filed, please provide certified copies of the docket sheet, complaint with any amendments. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours.

Enclosure

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 46 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, ET AL.

§

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

§

CONSOLIDATED WITH

§

§

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, ET AL. §

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1004-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1005-MTP
DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (BANKRUPTCY) COMES NOW Wayne Farms LLC, moving the Court to enter partial summary judgment
dismissing with prejudice 2 (2.1%) of our 93 Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs are judicially estopped from asserting this FLSA claim because they failed to list it as an asset in their bankruptcy petitions, and because the Plaintiffs are not the real parties in interest. In support of this Motion, Wayne Farms would show:
1. The Bankruptcy Code imposes upon bankruptcy debtors an express affirmative duty to disclose all assets, including contingent and unliquidated claims.
2. The duty of disclosure is a continuing one, and the debtor must disclose all potential causes of action, even contingent, dependent, or conditional causes.
3. If a debtor fails to disclose a pending or potential claim in his or her bankruptcy petition, he or she is judicially estopped from bringing that claim later.
4. Each of the Plaintiffs listed below has filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 46 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 2 of 5
5. Their petitions were filed at some point in the relevant time during which their claims accrued in this lawsuit.1
6. Each Plaintiff failed to list this FLSA claim as a contingent or unliquidated claim in his or her bankruptcy petition.
7. The Bankruptcy Court accepted their representation that they had no contingent or unliquidated claims and discharged their debts under Chapter 7.
8. The Plaintiffs did not act inadvertently; they had a clear motive to minimize assets, and they had knowledge of the factual basis for the FLSA claim at the time.
9. Thus, the Plaintiffs listed below are judicially estopped from asserting FLSA claims not listed in their bankruptcy petitions.
10. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a).
11. Any claim that arises prior to filing for bankruptcy or accrues prior to the ultimate discharge is property of the bankruptcy estate, and the trustee is the real party in interest with exclusive standing to pursue the claim.
12. These FLSA claims arose prior to or during the Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy proceedings. Thus, the trustee is the real party in interest, and the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue these claims.
13. The lack of substitution was not due to an understandable mistake, because Plaintiffs were placed on affirmative notice that the bankruptcy trustee was the proper party.

1 For purposes of argument only, it is assumed that the limitations period would begin three years prior to the date on which each Plaintiff filed her written consent to sue. 29 U.S.C. § 255.

100272.1

2

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 46 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 3 of 5

14. Plaintiffs have not acted within a reasonable time to substitute the trustee as the

proper party.

15. Thus, the Plaintiffs listed below lack standing to pursue this claim for failure to

prosecute in the name of the real party in interest, the bankruptcy trustee.

16. Therefore, these Plaintiffs should be dismissed based on judicial estoppel for

failure to list this FLSA claim on their bankruptcy petition, or based on Rule 17(a) for failure to

prosecute in the name of the real party in interest, or both:

Name

Ch. 7 Bankruptcy Petition Filed2

Discharge

1 Hogeland, Carolyn 10/5/05 (Ex. 1)

2/6/06 (Ex. 2)

S.

2 Peppers, Dorothy Mae

7/17/07 (Ex. 3)

10/19/07 (Ex. 4)

Consent Filed3
10/18/06 (Doc. 1-2, p. 13 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095) 9/13/07 (Doc. 75-2, p. 25 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095)

17. On June 9, 2008, in accordance with Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7, defense counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a list of Plaintiffs whose claims defense counsel believed should be dismissed in the form of a dismissal spreadsheet. Each of the Plaintiffs listed in this Motion was designated as a requested dismissal, for the reason underlying this Motion – bankruptcy estoppel / lack of standing.
18. Plaintiffs were required to respond, in writing, by August 1, 2008; the Court granted them a final extension until October 1, 2008. See Doc. 35 in 2:07md1872.

2 Because bankruptcy petitions are on average over thirty pages long, only the pertinent pages of the bankruptcy petitions are attached. The specific pages include: the Voluntary Petition (2-3 pages); the page where the Plaintiff answered “None” to the question under Schedule B – Personal Property which asks whether the debtor has “Other contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature, including tax refunds, counterclaims of the debtor, and right to setoff claims;” and the Plaintiff’s declaration under penalty of perjury.
3 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records.

100272.1

3

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 46 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 4 of 5
19. Plaintiffs did not respond to the dismissal requests in writing. They disclosed no reason for rejecting dismissal. They identified no documents supporting their position. In short, they ignored these commands of Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7.
20. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16(f)(1)(C) states that the Court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney fails to obey a scheduling order or other pretrial order. Wayne Farms asks the Court to prohibit these disobedient Plaintiffs from opposing the factual assertions of this Motion as authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii).
WHEREFORE, Wayne Farms LLC moves the Court to enter partial summary judgment dismissing these 2 Plaintiffs from these actions, with prejudice, taxing to them all related costs.
Respectfully submitted this the 15th day of October, 2008. WAYNE FARMS LLC BY: BALCH & BINGHAM LLP s/Anne Harlan Latino Anne Harlan Latino (102807) R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. (7921) Attorney for Defendant Balch & Bingham LLP Telephone (601) 965-8158 pcrutcher@balch.com

100272.1

4

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 47 Filed 10/15/08 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, ET AL.

§

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

§

CONSOLIDATED WITH

§

§

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, ET AL. §

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1004-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1005-MTP
DEFENDANT

BRIEF SUPPORTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (BANKRUPTCY)

I. Introduction

These two Plaintiffs should be dismissed, based on judicial estoppel for failure to list

their FLSA claims on their bankruptcy petitions, or based on Rule 17(a) for failure to prosecute

in the name of the real party in interest, or both:

Name

Ch. 7 Bankruptcy Petition Filed1

Discharge

1 Hogeland, Carolyn 10/5/05 (Ex. 1)

2/6/06 (Ex. 2)

S.

2 Peppers, Dorothy Mae

7/17/07 (Ex. 3)

10/19/07 (Ex. 4)

Consent Filed2
10/18/06 (Doc. 1-2, p. 13 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095) 9/13/07 (Doc. 75-2, p. 25 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095)

1 Because bankruptcy petitions are on average over thirty pages long, only the pertinent pages of the bankruptcy petitions are attached. The specific pages include: the Voluntary Petition (2-3 pages); the page where the Plaintiff answered “None” to the question under Schedule B – Personal Property which asks whether the debtor has “Other contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature, including tax refunds, counterclaims of the debtor, and right to setoff claims;” and the Plaintiff’s declaration under penalty of perjury.
2 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 47 Filed 10/15/08 Page 2 of 11

II. Judicial Estoppel Wayne Farms submits that the relevant dates are not genuinely disputed and that the
applicable law is clear. “Judicial estoppel is a common law doctrine by which a party who has assumed one position in his pleadings may be estopped from assuming an inconsistent position.” In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 205 (5th Cir. 1999). The Bankruptcy Code imposes “upon bankruptcy debtors an express affirmative duty to disclose all assets, including contingent and unliquidated claims.” Id. at 207-8 (emphasis in original). “The duty of disclosure in a bankruptcy proceeding is a continuing one, and a debtor is required to disclose all potential causes of action.” Id. at 208.
The debtor need not know all the facts or even the legal basis for the cause of action; rather, if the debtor has enough information . . . prior to confirmation to suggest that it may have a possible cause of action, then that is a “known” cause of action such that it must be disclosed. Id. (citations omitted) (omission in original). The Fifth Circuit stated that “[a]ny claim with potential must be disclosed, even if it is contingent, dependent, or conditional.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). “When a debtor fails to disclose a pending or potential claim in her bankruptcy petition, she is judicially estopped from bringing that claim later.” Kamont v. West, 83 Fed.Appx. 1, 3 (5th Cir. 2003) (unpublished) (citing In re Coastal Plains, 179 F.3d at 210). A court should apply judicial estoppel if: (1) the position of the party against which estoppel is sought is plainly inconsistent with its prior legal position; (2) the party against which estoppel is sought convinced a court to accept the prior position; and (3) the party did not act inadvertently.

100273.1

2

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 47 Filed 10/15/08 Page 3 of 11
Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc., 412 F.3d 598, 600 (5th Cir. 2005). a. The Plaintiffs have represented an inconsistent position to the Court.
The omission of a claim from mandatory bankruptcy filings is tantamount to a representation that no such claim existed. In re Superior Crewboats, 374 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2004). Each Plaintiff above filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7. These petitions were filed at some point in the relevant time during which their claims in this lawsuit accrued.3 Each Plaintiff failed to list this FLSA claim as a contingent or unliquidated claim in his or her petition. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have asserted a position in this FLSA lawsuit that is plainly inconsistent with their prior legal positions, namely that they had no contingent or unliquidated claims.
b. The Plaintiffs convinced the bankruptcy court to accept their first position. Adoption of a prior position does not require a formal judgment; it only requires that the first court adopted the position urged by the party, either as a preliminary matter or as a part of a final disposition. In re Superior Crewboats, 374 F.3d at 335. Under Chapter 7, when a Court accepts an individual’s bankruptcy petition disclosing all of his or her assets and ultimately grants the debtor a discharge of his indebtedness, the Court has adopted any representations made in or omitted from the bankruptcy petition. Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex Inc., 291 F.3d 1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002). This rule applies equally under Chapter 13 cases, when a Court confirms the debtor’s plan. De Leon v. Comcar Industries Inc., 321 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003).

3 Causes of action accruing prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition are property of the bankruptcy estate and may only be prosecuted by the bankruptcy trustee. Ratliff v. Bay Inc. of Texas, 2007 WL 1455969, at *1 (W.D. La. May 15, 2007). For purposes of argument only, it is assumed that the limitations period would begin three years before each Plaintiff filed her written consent to sue. 29 U.S.C. § 255.

100273.1

3

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 47 Filed 10/15/08 Page 4 of 11

Here, each of the Plaintiffs convinced the bankruptcy court to accept his or her prior position – that they had no contingent or unliquidated claims – because each Plaintiff has received a discharge under Chapter 7.
c. The Plaintiffs did not act inadvertently. In considering judicial estoppel for bankruptcy cases, the debtor’s failure to disclose is “inadvertent” only when the debtor either lacks knowledge of the undisclosed claims or has no motive for their concealment. In re Coastal Plains, 179 F.3d at 210. “A debtor always has a motive for concealing potential causes of action in order to minimize income and assets.” Gaskins, 521 F.Supp.2d at 697-98. Plaintiffs would certainly reap a windfall if they are able to recover on their undisclosed FLSA claims without having disclosed them to the creditors. In re Superior Crewboats, 374 F.3d at 336. So, to show that the failure to disclose these claims was inadvertent, Plaintiffs must show that they were unaware of the facts giving rise to them. Jethroe, 412 F.3d at 601. The Complaint alleges that, for the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiffs were not paid overtime compensation allegedly due for various activities, including donning and doffing personal protective equipment.4 Thus, it is clear that Plaintiffs had a sufficient factual basis at the time of filing their bankruptcy petitions to disclose their causes of action related to the FLSA. See Gaskins, 521 F.Supp.2d at 697.
d. Therefore, the Court should dismiss these Plaintiffs’ claims based on judicial estoppel.
In Jethroe, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the plaintiff’s Title VII claim was judicially estopped because the plaintiff failed to disclose the claim during the

4 Again, Plaintiffs do not have to know or understand the legal or statutory basis for filing the lawsuit; they only need to be aware of the facts that ultimately support the claim. In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d at 208.

100273.1

4

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 47 Filed 10/15/08 Page 5 of 11
bankruptcy proceedings. Jethroe, 412 F.3d at 600. The Fifth Circuit also held that judicial estoppel barred plaintiffs’ personal injury suit as a matter of law for failure to disclose the claim in their bankruptcy case. In re Superior Crewboats, 374 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2004).5 In Gaskins v. Thousand Trails, LP, 521 F.Supp.2d 693 (S.D. Ohio 2007), the court held that judicial estoppel barred the employee’s FLSA claim because she did not list her claim as a contingent or unliquidated claim in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.
Allowing Plaintiffs to reap a windfall at the expense of their creditors “would permit debtors to conceal their claims; get rid of [their] creditors on the cheap, and start over with a bundle of rights.” In re Superior Crewboats, 374 F.3d at 336. Furthermore, “[a]llowing [the debtor] to back-up, re-open the bankruptcy case, and amend his bankruptcy filings, only after his omission has been challenged by an adversary, suggests that a debtor should consider disclosing personal assets only if he is caught concealing them.” Id. Therefore, the Court should dismiss these Plaintiffs’ claims based on judicial estoppel.
III. Lack of Standing Rule 17(a) requires that “an action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in
interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a). These FLSA claims arose prior to the Plaintiffs’ filing for bankruptcy or accrued prior to their ultimate discharge. Thus, these claims are property of the

5 The Fifth Circuit recently differentiated this case from their holding in Kane v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 535 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2008). In Kane, the Court held that judicial estoppel did not bar the plaintiff’s claim because the bankruptcy trustee re-opened the bankruptcy case and moved to substitute himself as the real party in interest. Id. at 387. The Court differentiated the Kane case from In re Superior Crewboats by noting that the trustee in Crewboats had formally abandoned pursing the claim and only later attempted to re-open the bankruptcy and move to substitute; so the claim was properly judicially estopped. Id. at 386-87. Here, no trustee for any of their Plaintiffs has contacted defense counsel, no trustee has attempted to re-open their Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy cases, and no trustee has moved for substitution as the real party in interest.

100273.1

5

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 47 Filed 10/15/08 Page 6 of 11

bankruptcy estate and the Trustee is the real party in interest with exclusive standing to assert them. Wieburg v. GTE Southwest Inc., 272 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 2001).6
Rule 17(a)(3) states that a “court may not dismiss an action for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party in interest until, after an objection, a reasonable time has been allowed for the real party in interest to ratify, join, or be substituted into the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff who is not the real party in interest must show (1) that he sued in his own name based on an understandable mistake and (2) that he did not have a reasonable time to correct the pleading deficiency. Wieburg v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 2003 WL 21417074, at *2 (5th Cir. June 2, 2003) aff’g Wieburg v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 2002 WL 31156431 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2002).
a. Plaintiffs’ pursuit of the action in their own names was not the result of an understandable mistake.
It is not an understandable mistake if actions reveal a clear attempt to actively conceal these claims from the bankruptcy trustees. Wieburg v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 2002 WL 31156431, at * 3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2002) aff’d, Wieburg v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 2003 WL 21417074 (5th Cir. June 2, 2003). Furthermore, if a party has been placed on affirmative notice that a bankruptcy trustee and not the individual plaintiff is the proper party, the court will not find an understandable mistake. Id.
Here, Plaintiffs have been on notice since April 10, 2007 that the Defendants would seek dismissal of Plaintiffs estopped for failure to list his or her FLSA claim as an asset in his or her

6 In this case, the Fifth Circuit held that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to dismiss the action without explaining why less drastic alternative were inappropriate. Id. at 303. On remand, the district court again dismissed the case, after addressing each of the Fifth Circuit’s concerns. Wieburg v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 2002 WL 31156431 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2002). In the second appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing under Rule 17(a). Wieburg v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 2003 WL 21417074 (5th Cir. June 2, 2003).

100273.1

6

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 47 Filed 10/15/08 Page 7 of 11
bankruptcy case. On April 10, 2007, Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Permitting Court Supervised Notice to Employees of their Opt-in Rights (Doc. 49, filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095). In that Response, several times Defendants mention the lack of standing of certain Plaintiffs due to bankruptcy and the fact that the claims belong to the bankruptcy trustee and not the Plaintiffs. See Doc. 49 at p. 2 & 19.
Furthermore, Pretrial Order No. 2 was filed on May 20, 2008, which stated that the Defendants would seek dismissal of Plaintiffs estopped for failure to list his or her FLSA claim as an asset in his or her bankruptcy case. See Pretrial Order No. 2, ¶ 7. Additionally, Plaintiffs have been on notice since June 9, 2008, as to exactly which Plaintiffs would potentially be dismissed for failure to list the claim in their bankruptcy cases because defense counsel provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with the dismissal spreadsheet on that date, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7. None of the trustees assigned to the above listed Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy cases have contacted defense counsel, re-opened the bankruptcy case, or filed a motion for substitution. Thus, there has been no understandable mistake in this case because Plaintiffs were placed on affirmative notice that their bankruptcy trustees are the real parties in interest.
b. Plaintiffs have not acted within a reasonable time. What constitutes a reasonable time is a matter of judicial discretion and will depend on the facts of each case. Wieburg v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 2002 WL 31156431, at * 3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2002) aff’d, Wieburg v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 2003 WL 21417074 (5th Cir. June 2, 2003). The Plaintiffs have been on notice since April 10, 2007 that the Defendants would ask that any Plaintiff, who is estopped by failure to list his or her FLSA claim as an asset in his or her bankruptcy case, be dismissed. See Doc. 49. They have also been on notice of exactly which Plaintiffs may be estopped since June 9, 2008 when defense counsel provided the dismissal

100273.1

7

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 47 Filed 10/15/08 Page 8 of 11

spreadsheets. Plaintiffs have either failed to contact their bankruptcy trustees, or the bankruptcy trustees have failed to intervene.7 Either way, the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this claim. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed based on Rule 17(a) for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party in interest, the bankruptcy trustee.
IV. Plaintiffs Should be Prohibited from Offering any Evidence in Opposition to this Motion
On June 9, 2008, in accordance with Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7, defense counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a list of Plaintiffs whose claims defense counsel believed should be dismissed in the form of a dismissal spreadsheet. Each of the Plaintiffs listed in this Motion was designated as a requested dismissal, for the reason underlying this Motion – bankruptcy estoppel / lack of standing. Plaintiffs were required to respond, in writing, by August 1, 2008; the Court granted them a final extension until October 1, 2008. See Doc. 35 in 2:07md1872. Plaintiffs did not respond to the dismissal requests in writing. They disclosed no reason for rejecting dismissal. They identified no documents supporting their position. In short, they ignored these commands of Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7. Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to adequately respond and their resulting failure to obey the Court’s Order, Wayne Farms requests that the Court exclude all facts and documentation suggesting that these Plaintiffs should not be dismissed.
Rule 16(f)(1)(C) states that the Court may “issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney . . . fails to obey a scheduling order or other pretrial order.” Because Plaintiffs have clearly failed to obey the Court’s Pretrial

7 Plaintiffs’ counsel has contacted the bankruptcy trustee for certain plaintiffs. For example, in April and May 2007, Robert Camp was employed as special counsel in James Glover and Carolyn Gurley’s bankruptcy cases to pursue this claim. In 2007, they also amended their Schedule B to list the FLSA claim as a contingent claim. Because Plaintiffs’ counsel has had reasonable time to contact the trustees for these Plaintiffs, there is no explanation for why they have not done the same as to the Plaintiffs targeted by this Motion.

100273.1

8

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 47 Filed 10/15/08 Page 9 of 11

Order No. 2, any just sanctions or those allowed by Rule 37(b)(2)(A) are appropriate at this time.
Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides sanctions for a party’s failure to obey a discovery order, including
“(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or
defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.” In accordance with this Rule,
Plaintiffs should be prohibited from opposing this Motion for Partial Summary and also
prohibited from introducing any facts or documents regarding such matters into evidence.8
V. Conclusion
These Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed, with prejudice, either based on judicial
estoppel for failure to list the FLSA claim on their bankruptcy petition, or based on Rule 17(a)
for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party in interest, or both.
Respectfully submitted this the 15th day of October, 2008.
WAYNE FARMS LLC
BY: BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
s/Anne Harlan Latino Anne Harlan Latino (102807) R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. (7921) E. Russell Turner (9903) Attorneys for Defendant
8 See e.g. Fleming & Assoc. v. Newby & Tittle, 529 F.3d 631 (5th Cir. 2008) (Federal Rule 16 permits exclusion of expert report submitted after scheduling order deadline); Edmonds v. Beneficial Miss., Inc., 212 Fed.Appx. 334 (5th Cir. 2007) (Federal Rules 26 and 37 permitted court to exclude credit report which plaintiff failed to disclose prior to discovery deadline); Barrett v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 95 F.3d 375, 380 (5th Cir. 1996) (Federal Rules 16 and 37 authorize court to impose sanctions on disobedient party by refusing to allow that party to introduce designated matters into evidence, such as expert opinions provided subsequent to the deadline required by the court’s scheduling order); Jones v. Flowserve FCD Corp., 73 Fed.Appx. 706 (5th Cir. 2003) (court did not abuse its discretion in striking summary judgment affidavit which contained three expert opinions not previously disclosed during discovery); Velez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375 F.3d 35, 42-43 (1st Cir. 2004) (defendants prohibited from opposing plaintiff’s claims because defendants failed to comply with scheduling order); Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218 (3rd Cir. 2003) (plaintiff precluded from introducing evidence of damages at trial after repeated non-compliance with discovery requests and scheduling orders which required such disclosure); Rabb v. Amatex Corp., 769 F.2d 996 (4th Cir. 1985) (appellate court affirmed trial court’s decision to preclude plaintiff’s evidence for failure to comply with discovery orders).

100273.1

9

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 47 Filed 10/15/08 Page 10 of 11
Balch & Bingham LLP Telephone (601) 965-8158 pcrutcher@balch.com

100273.1

10

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 47 Filed 10/15/08 Page 11 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 15, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:
Seth M. Hunter Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC 404 Hemphill Street Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401
William S. Hommel, Jr. 3304 South Broadway Avenue Tyler, Texas 75701-7818
Robert L. Salim 1762 Texas Street Natchitoches, LA 71457
Richard Celler Morgan & Morgan 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, Florida 33314
Mike Espy Lamar Life Building 317 E. Capitol Street, Suite 101 Jackson, MS 39201
s/Anne Harlan Latino Of Counsel

100273.1

11

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 59 Filed 11/17/08 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, ET AL.

§

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

§

CONSOLIDATED WITH

§

§

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, ET AL. §

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1004-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1005-MTP
DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SHORT WEEKS) COMES NOW Wayne Farms LLC, moving the Court to enter partial summary judgment
dismissing with prejudice 1 (1%) of our 93 Plaintiffs because, even assuming, pro arguendo, that his off-line tasks required as much as 28 extra weekly hours, he never worked more than 40 hours in any contestable work week and consequently, does not have an FLSA overtime claim. In support of this Motion, Wayne Farms would show:
1. The FLSA requires payment of a minimum hourly wage and an overtime premium wage for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. An employee has no minimum wage claim if her average wage, for a period in which he or she worked no overtime, exceeds the minimum wage. There is no genuine dispute that Wayne Farms paid all Plaintiffs at least the minimum wage. This is solely an overtime action.
2. “Gap time” refers to time that is not covered by the overtime provisions because it does not exceed the overtime limit, and time that is not covered by the minimum wage provisions because the employees are paid above minimum wage.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 59 Filed 11/17/08 Page 2 of 4

3. “Gap time” claims are not cognizable under the FLSA when the hours worked are

less than 40 hours per week and the employee has been paid at least minimum wage for hours

worked.

4. According to Wayne Farms’ pay records, this Plaintiff never worked more than

11.2 hours in any contestable work week. The hours worked per week are shown under the

regular hours (“RegHrs”) column on each Plaintiff’s hours and earnings history report, stipulated

to be authentic. See Business Records Stipulation, Doc. 25, 2:07md1872.

5. Plaintiffs, of course, claim that Wayne Farms’ “Master Card” system failed to

record some number of daily minutes they spent in off-line tasks that they characterize as FLSA

“work.” For that assertion to be material to the outcome of this Motion, however, the Plaintiff

targeted by this Motion would have to show that he spent more than 28.8 hours per week in off-

line work not captured by the swipes of his line’s Master time card.

6. This Plaintiff cannot genuinely dispute Wayne Farms’ assertion that, even if he

worked off-line without compensation, his weekly uncompensated minutes never pushed his

total weekly work over 40 hours.

7. Therefore, this Plaintiff should be dismissed, based on these genuinely

indisputable facts:

Name 1 Gallagher, Michael L.

Most Hours Worked

Hours and Earnings Report

in one Week1

11.2

ALB012045 (Ex. 1)

1 This is the most hours that the Plaintiff worked in any single work week since October 2003, which is three years prior to the filing of the first consents to join this action. Wayne Farms still asserts that the applicable statute of limitations period runs backwards from the time that each individual Plaintiff filed his or her consent. However, for simplicity’s sake here, Wayne Farms has looked as far back as October 2003 for everyone to determine maximum hours worked.

101602.1

2

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 59 Filed 11/17/08 Page 3 of 4

8. On June 9, 2008, in accordance with Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7, defense counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a list of Plaintiffs whose claims defense counsel believed should be dismissed in the form of a dismissal spreadsheet. Each of the Plaintiffs listed in this Motion was designated as a requested dismissal, for the reason underlying this Motion – short weeks / no overtime.
9. Plaintiffs who refused dismissal were required to respond, in writing, by August 1, 2008, explaining their grounds for refusing and citing supporting documents; the Court granted them a final extension until October 1, 2008. See Doc. 35 in 2:07md1872.
10. Plaintiffs did not respond to the dismissal requests in writing. They disclosed no reason for rejecting dismissal. They identified no documents supporting their position. In short, they ignored these commands of Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7.
11. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16(f)(1)(C) states that the Court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney fails to obey a scheduling order or other pretrial order. Wayne Farms asks the Court to prohibit these disobedient Plaintiffs from opposing the factual assertions of this Motion, as authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii).
WHEREFORE, Wayne Farms LLC moves the Court to enter partial summary judgment dismissing this Plaintiff from these actions, with prejudice, taxing to him all related costs.
Respectfully submitted this the 17th day of November, 2008. WAYNE FARMS LLC BY: BALCH & BINGHAM LLP s/Anne Harlan Latino Anne Harlan Latino (102807) R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. (7921) Attorney for Defendant

101602.1

3

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 59 Filed 11/17/08 Page 4 of 4
Balch & Bingham LLP Telephone (601) 965-8158 pcrutcher@balch.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 17, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:
William S. Hommel, Jr. 3304 South Broadway Avenue Tyler, Texas 75701-7818
Robert L. Salim 1762 Texas Street Natchitoches, LA 71457
Richard Celler Morgan & Morgan 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, Florida 33314
Mike Espy Lamar Life Building 317 E. Capitol Street, Suite 101 Jackson, MS 39201
s/Anne Harlan Latino Of Counsel

101602.1

4

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 60 Filed 11/17/2008 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, ET AL.

§

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

§

CONSOLIDATED WITH

§

§

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, ET AL. §

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1004-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1005-MTP
DEFENDANT

BRIEF SUPPORTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SHORT WEEKS)

I. Introduction

This Plaintiff should be dismissed because he cannot establish a claim for unpaid

overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Name 1 Gallagher, Michael L.

Most Hours Worked

Hours and Earnings Report

in one Week1

11.2

ALB012045 (Ex. 1)

II. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is warranted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). To support a motion for summary judgment, “the moving

1This is the most hours that the Plaintiff worked in any single work week since October 2003, which is three years prior to the filing of the first consents to join this action. Wayne Farms still asserts that the applicable statute of limitations period runs backwards from the time that each individual Plaintiff filed his or her consent. However, for simplicity’s sake, Wayne Farms has looked as far back as October 2003 for everyone to determine maximum hours worked.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 60 Filed 11/17/2008 Page 2 of 7
party...[has] the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.” Burleson v. Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice, 393 F.3d 577, 589 (5th Cir 2004). Material facts are those that “could affect the outcome of the action.” Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 233, 235 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Disputes about material facts are genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party” on that issue. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court views all evidence “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party” and “draw[s] all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Breen v. Texas A&M Univ., 485 F.3d 325, 331 (5th Cir. 2007). If the movant satisfies its initial burden, then the burden shifts back to the nonmoving party to produce evidence indicating that a genuine issue of material fact exists for each essential element of its case. Rivera v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 349 F.3d 244, 246-47 (5th Cir. 2003). The nonmovant is not entitled to merely rest on her pleadings, but must set forth “specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.” DirecTV, Inc. v. Robson, 420 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 2005). If the nonmovant responds and still “no reasonable juror could find for the nonmovant, summary judgment will be granted.” Caboni v. General Motors Corp., 278 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2002).
III. Plaintiffs Cannot Produce Evidence That They Worked Any Overtime at Wayne Farms
To establish a claim for uncompensated overtime under FLSA, a plaintiff must demonstrate:
(1) that he worked overtime hours without compensation; (2) the amount and extent of the work as a matter of just and reasonable
inference; and

101603.1

2

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 60 Filed 11/17/2008 Page 3 of 7

(3) that the employer “suffered” or “permitted” him to work uncompensated overtime.
Maciel v. City of Los Angeles, 569 F.Supp.2d 1038, 1043 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “[A]n employee cannot succeed on a claim under the FLSA if his average wage for a period in which he works no overtime exceeds minimum wage.” Bolick v. Brevard County Sheriffs Dept., 937 F.Supp. 1560, 1568 (M.D. Fla. 1006) (emphasis added). “[P]artial summary judgment is appropriate where there is no dispute that the plaintiffs’ salary is above the minimum wage, and they are owed no overtime.” Id. If an employee never works more than forty hours in a week, the employer could not possibly violate the FLSA by failing to pay her overtime compensation. Green v. Dallas County Schools, 2005 WL 1630032, at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 6, 2005). See also, Covington v. Cooper, 426 F.Supp. 1118, 1123 (S.D. Miss. 1977) (employee who only worked two hours per day was not entitled to any overtime pay).
“Gap time” refers to time that is not covered by the overtime provisions because it does not exceed the overtime limit, and . . . time that is not covered by the minimum wage provisions because, even though the work is uncompensated, the employees are still being paid a minimum wage when their salaries are averaged across their actual time worked.
Green, 2005 WL 1630032, at *3 (omission in original). Almost all courts that have addressed the issue of gap time have held that a plaintiff cannot state a claim under the FLSA if he works less than 40 hours per week and receives payment in excess of what he would have been paid had he worked 40 hours per week at minimum wage.2 Furthermore, several courts have granted

2 See e.g., Ladegaard v. Hard Rock Concrete Cutters Inc., 2004 WL 1882449, at * 5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2004); Green, 2005 WL 1630032, at *3 (gap time claim not cognizable under the FLSA); Maciel, 569 F.Supp.2d at 1056 (a pure gap time claim is untenable under the FLSA); Carter v. City of Charleston, South Carolina, 995 F.Supp. 620, 621 (D.S.C. 1997) (“Pure gap time claims are not cognizable under the FLSA when the hours worked do not exceed the overtime threshold and the employee has been paid for those hours at the statutory minimum wage.”); Davis v. City of Loganville,

101603.1

3

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 60 Filed 11/17/2008 Page 4 of 7

partial summary judgment for the defendant on an FLSA claim when the plaintiff has never worked more than 403 hours per week. See e. g., Maciel, 569 F.Supp.2d at 1056; Green, 2005 WL 1630032, at *3-4; Bolick, 937 F.Supp. at 1569; Arnold v. State of Arkansas, 910 F.Supp. 1385, 1393-94 (E.D. Ark. 1995).
The Plaintiffs attempted to add a claim for “gap time” to their Complaint in their Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Doc. 11, filed in S.D. Miss. 2:07cv1004. Because gap time is not a cognizable claim under the FLSA, the Plaintiffs disguised their gap time claim as a state law claim for unjust enrichment. However, this Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion, and so Plaintiffs have not properly asserted a claim for gap time. Doc. 17, filed in S.D. Miss. 2:07cv1004.
The Plaintiff listed above cannot demonstrate that he worked any overtime hours at Wayne Farms. The Plaintiff never worked more than 40 hours per week. The most hours that the Plaintiff worked in one week is 11.2 hours. The hours worked per week are evidenced under the regular hours (“RegHrs”) column on each Plaintiff’s hours and earnings history report, which are drawn from employment records that Wayne Farms has produced to Plaintiffs and that are stipulated to be authentic. See Business Records Stipulation, Doc. 25, 2:07md1872.4
The Plaintiff listed in the table above only worked 11.2 hours in his one week of employment at Wayne Farms. For Mr. Gallagher to have any claim for unpaid overtime under the FLSA, he would have to show that he spent more than 28.8 hours per week, or on average,

Georgia, 2006 WL 826713, at *9 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2006) (“widely-accepted rule of law that employers are not obligated under the FLSA to compensate employers for “gap time” as long as employees receive at least the statutory minimum wage for all nonovertime hours worked”).
3 The Plaintiffs in some of the cases were police or firemen, where the applicable FLSA maximum hours was a number of hours over a two week period or over twenty-eight days.
4 Plaintiffs are also paid six minutes per day for personal time at their regular rate; this can be found under the personal time hours (“PTHrs”) column on the earnings and history reports.

101603.1

4

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 60 Filed 11/17/2008 Page 5 of 7

almost 6 hours per day, in off-line work not captured by the swipes of his line’s Master time card. Plaintiff will not be able to demonstrate that he spent more than 28.8 hours per week in uncompensated off-line work, and therefore, he has no claim for overtime under the FLSA as he never worked more than 40 hours in any given work week.
Additionally, Plaintiff was paid more than minimum wage;5 he was paid $9.05 per hour, which is higher than minimum wage. Thus, because Plaintiff never worked overtime and was always paid more than minimum wage, Plaintiff cannot establish a claim under the FLSA.
IV. Plaintiff Should be Prohibited from Offering any Evidence in Opposition to this Motion
On June 9, 2008, in accordance with Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7, defense counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a list of Plaintiffs whose claims defense counsel believed should be dismissed in the form of a dismissal spreadsheet. Each of the Plaintiffs listed in this Motion was designated as a requested dismissal, for the reason underlying this Motion – short weeks / no overtime. Plaintiffs were required to respond, in writing, by August 1, 2008; the Court granted them a final extension until October 1, 2008. See Doc. 35 in 2:07md1872. Plaintiffs did not respond to the dismissal requests in writing. They disclosed no reason for rejecting dismissal. They identified no documents supporting their position. In short, they ignored these commands of Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7. Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to adequately respond and their resulting failure to obey the Court’s Order, Wayne Farms requests that the Court exclude all facts and documentation suggesting that these Plaintiffs should not be dismissed.
Rule 16(f)(1)(C) states that the Court may “issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney . . . fails to obey a scheduling
5 Plaintiffs have not properly alleged a claim for failure to pay at least minimum wage in their complaint. This point is made only to reiterate that the Plaintiffs targeted in this Motion have no cognizable claim under the FLSA, for overtime or minimum wage.

101603.1

5

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 60 Filed 11/17/2008 Page 6 of 7

order or other pretrial order.” Because Plaintiffs have clearly failed to obey the Court’s Pretrial
Order No. 2, any just sanctions or those allowed by Rule 37(b)(2)(A) are appropriate at this time.
Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides sanctions for a party’s failure to obey a discovery order, including
“(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or
defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.” In accordance with this Rule,
Plaintiffs should be prohibited from opposing this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and
also prohibited from introducing any facts or documents regarding such matters into evidence.6
V. Conclusion
This Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed, with prejudice, because she cannot establish a
claim for unpaid overtime under the FLSA.
Respectfully submitted this the 17th day of November, 2008.
WAYNE FARMS LLC
BY: BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
s/Anne Harlan Latino Anne Harlan Latino (102807) R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. (7921) E. Russell Turner (9903) Attorneys for Defendant
6 See e.g. Fleming & Assoc. v. Newby & Tittle, 529 F.3d 631 (5th Cir. 2008) (Federal Rule 16 permits exclusion of expert report submitted after scheduling order deadline); Edmonds v. Beneficial Miss., Inc., 212 Fed.Appx. 334 (5th Cir. 2007) (Federal Rules 26 and 37 permitted court to exclude credit report which plaintiff failed to disclose prior to discovery deadline); Barrett v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 95 F.3d 375, 380 (5th Cir. 1996) (Federal Rules 16 and 37 authorize court to impose sanctions on disobedient party by refusing to allow that party to introduce designated matters into evidence, such as expert opinions provided subsequent to the deadline required by the court’s scheduling order); Jones v. Flowserve FCD Corp., 73 Fed.Appx. 706 (5th Cir. 2003) (court did not abuse its discretion in striking summary judgment affidavit which contained three expert opinions not previously disclosed during discovery); Velez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375 F.3d 35, 42-43 (1st Cir. 2004) (defendants prohibited from opposing plaintiff’s claims because defendants failed to comply with scheduling order); Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218 (3rd Cir. 2003) (plaintiff precluded from introducing evidence of damages at trial after repeated non-compliance with discovery requests and scheduling orders which required such disclosure); Rabb v. Amatex Corp., 769 F.2d 996 (4th Cir. 1985) (appellate court affirmed trial court’s decision to preclude plaintiff’s evidence for failure to comply with discovery orders).

101603.1

6

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 63 Filed 11/24/08 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, ET AL.
vs.

PLAINTIFFS CASE .NO. 2:07CV1004-KS-MTP

WAYNEFARMSLLC

DEFENDANT

CONSOLIDATED WITH

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, ET AL.
vs.

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1005-MTP

WAYNE FARMS LLC

DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT lOA) COMES NOW Wayne Farms LLC, moving the Court to enter partial summary judgment dismissing from this overtime suit thtee (3) Plaintiffs who have worked only as Quality Assurance ("QA") employees at Defendaot's Albertville plant, because QA employees perform the disputed tasks during paid shift time. In support of this Motion, Wayne Farms would show: I. Some of our Plaintiffs ate Albertville, Alabama processing line employees who dispute the f'LSA compliance of a particular pay practice. Wayne Farms pays them in two ways for each shift. First, a master time card serves as a proxy for the individual card of each employee assigned to a particular processing line segment. The card is swiped when the line is scheduled to start, and is swiped when it stops. Wayne Farms adds lo that time 6 daily minutes, called "Personal Time," in recognition of things done by employees before and after their work
on the line- e.g., putting things on and walking to the line, walking away from the line and
taking things off. Focusing only on the master time card's use, Plaintiffs claim that Wayne
Farms has not paid them at all for time spent in off-line tasks.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 63 Filed 11/24/08 Page 2 of 4

2. This Motion targets three Plaintiffs who have not been subject to the contested pay practice, because-they have not been processing line workers in any contestable work week. 1

They were quality assurance employees, as shown below.

Table 1: Quality Assurance Plaintiffs

Name

Positions Held During 3 Years Consent Filing Data' Before Consent Filing

I Hicks, Margaretta M. QA 7/21/99-present
Produced Docs. 4 • ALBOI0712- ALB010715 5 • ALB012108- ALB012111

Doc.# 5, at page 16 filed on 11/20/07 in S.D. Miss. 2:07cv01004

2 Whiteside, Denise

QA 7/21/99- present
Produced Docs. 3 - ALB008078 • ALB008081 4 • ALBO10863 - ALBO10866 5- ALB012259- ALB012262

Doc.# 75·2, at page 45 filed on 9113107 in
N.D. Ala.
4:06cv02095

3 Woods, Vickie L.

QA 5/30/00- present
Produced Docs. 4 • ALBOI0871- ALB010874 5- ALB012267 • ALB012270

Doc. # 5, at page 19 filed on 11/20/07 in S.D. Miss. 2:07cv01004

See Declaration ofConnie Blevins, Human Resources Maoager, attached hereto as Exhibit I.

1This Motion assumes, solely fur purposes of this argument, that each Plaintiff could
prove that any FLSA violation was willful, so as to extend the limitations period from 2 to 3 years under 29 U.S.C. § 255.
2 Some of the consents were originally filed in the Northern District of Alabama in case 4:06cv2095. That case was traosferred to the Southern District of Mississippi, 2:07cvl004, on 11/20/07. See Doc. 4 in 2:07cv!004: "Case traosferred in from District of Alabama Northern; Case Number 4:06·cv,02095. Original file with documents nurnberod I • 84, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received." Wayne Farms asks the Court to take judicial notice of the facts in this column. since they appear at the cited places in the Court's re_cords.

IOIQ86 I

2

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 63 Filed 11/24/08 Page 3 of 4
3. These QA employees were not paid in the way described in the Amended
Complaint during the weeks in question. See Ryan Harper's Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. None was paid by master card. Each was expected to report to the QA office by shift start time, swiping her timecard in the card reader that is just around the comer from the office door. !d. Each was permitted to gather her things, acquire any additional needed items (sleeves, if needed), put on what she was required to wear on the plant floor, and walk out to the plant floor, on paid shift time. ld. A reasonable number of minuws have been allowed for the QA workers to get to wherever they are sent on the plant floor; their presence on the plant floor is not a requirement for the start of production. On most occasions, they were provided no less than 5 minutes and no more than 15 minutes. Id. Consequently, they have been paid already for all the activities cited in the First Amended Complaint. See Exhibit 2.
4. The facts stared in the preceding paragraphs are beyond genuine dispute and they support the finding that Wayne Flll'llls has not required QA workers to don, doff and walk to and from assigned work areas outside the hours captured by a mllbier time card. That finding compels the conclusion that Wayne Farms is entitled to partial summary judgment disruissing all claims for weeks the Plaintiffs spent as quality assurance employees.
5. In support of this motion, Wayne Farms relies on its concurrently filed Memorandum and on these attached exhibits:
Exhibit 1~Declaration ofHmnan Resource Manager, Connie Blevins; Exhibit 2 ~ Declaration of Quality Assurance Manager, Ryan Harper. Exhibit 3 ~ Business records previously produced showing each employee's tenure at Quality Assurance Department.
3

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 63 Filed 11/24/08 Page 4 of 4

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Wa)'tle Fanns LLC respectfully

requests entry of partial summary judgment dismissing with prejudice the claims made by these

three Plaintiffs, taxing to them all related costs. Respectfully submitted this the 241h day ofNovember, 2008.

WAYNE FARMS LLC BY: BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
s! R. POjlper Crutcher, Jr. R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. (7921) Anne HaJ"lan Latino (I 02807) Attorney for Defendant Balch & Bingham LLP 40 I E. Capitol Street, Suite 200 Jackso!l, MS 39201 Telephone (601) 965-8158 nerutcher@balch.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1 hereby certifY that on November 24, 2008, 1 electronically ftled the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:
William S. Hommel, Jr. 3304 South Broadway Avenue Tyler, Texas 75701-7818

Robert L. Salim 1762 Texas Street Natchitoches, LA 71457

Richard Celler Morgan & Morgan 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, Florida 33314

Mike Espy Lamar Life Building 317 E. Capitol Street, Suite 101 Jackson, MS 39201

sl R. Pencer Crutcher. Jr.
Of Counsel

I~IOSC I

4

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 64 Filed 11/24/2008 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DMSION

JIMMY BELUE, ET AL.
vs.

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1004-KS-MTP

WAYNEFARMSLLC

DEFENDANT

CONSOLIDATED WITH

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, ET AL.
vs.

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1005-MTP

WAYNE FARMS LLC

DEFENDANT

BRIEF SUPPORTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SVMMARY JUDGMENT !OAl Three of our Plaintiffs are or were quality assurance Workers at Wayne Farms' Albertville, Alabama, chicken processing facility. 1 They do not belong in this suit about the adequacy of processing line master card time tracking, In fact, they have no FLSA claims at all, because quality assurance workers perform the preliminary and post-liminary tasks cited in the First Amended Complaint during their paid shift time. FACTS Plaintiffs complain that paying them based on a master time card that only measures the running time of a processing line ignores the time they spend donning work clothing and walking to the line before the line starts, and walking away from the line and doffing that clothing after
the line stops. They demand pay for that time too, when it makes a difference in overtime pay
due them under the Fair Labor Standards AcL

1 Margaretta M. Hicks, Denise Whiteside and Vickie L. Woods. See Motion Exhibit I.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 64 Filed 11/24/2008 Page 2 of 5
As to quality assurance workers, the answering facts are simple and clear. They are not p~d by master card, nor are they paid only for the running time of a processing line. They are paid each shift for the time they spend in the alleged activities.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The movant carries the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact but is not required to negate the opponent's claim. !d. Rather, the movant may meet its burden merely by '"showing' -that is, pointing out to the district court- that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. Once this burden has be~n met, the non-movant must then go beyond the pleadings and designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." !d. at 324, (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). The existence of some factual disputes between the litigants will no.t defeat an otherwise properly supported motion fur s11mmary judgment. "[T]he requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, I06 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in the original). The substantive law applicable to the causes ofaction claimed will establish which facts are material. Id.
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
As a general rule, the FLSA provides that employees arc entitled to receive overrime pay at one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(l); see also Avery v. City ofTalladega, 24 F.3d 1337, 1340 (lith

!010ll9 I

2

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 64 Filed 11/24/2008 Page 3 of 5
Cir. 1994). In IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), the Court held that the travel time
exclusion of the Portal to Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 254, does not cover the daily time that employees spend walking in the plant after the work day has begun and before the work day
ends. FLSA claims accrue per underpaid work week and are analyzed per work week. See 29 U.s.C. § 206. Poultry processing employees across America are suing their employers because
many of those employers pay only for the time that employees spend on the line. The employees contend that the work day starts before and ends after their line work, and, citing Alvarez,
demand overtime re"calculations including the daily minutes spent in their preliminary and
postliminary tasks, counting time spent walking to the line after the first task and walking away from the line before the last one. For this motion's purposes, Wayne Farms will not quarrel with
that logic, as far as it goes, becatL~Je it is inapplicable to quality assurance workers.
Quality assurance workers are required to report to the QA Office and as long as they are
at the QA Office by their scheduled shift start time, they are considered timely. See Declaration
of Ryan Harper, atlllched to Wayne Farms' Motion as Exhibit 2. It is only after they get to the QA Office thatthey are required to gather and put on the things they need to wear and use. !d. Typically, they have from five to fifteen minutes to gather their things and walk from the QA Office to a position on the floor, a time that is more than adequate in almost every circumstance. !d. Even ifthey take too long getting from the QA Office to their assigned position, they are not docked for that delinquency. !d.
At the end ofthe.shift, second shift QA employees are paid to the very minute that they clock out, after dropping off everythiog they wore and used while working in the plant. ld. First shift QA employees are also paid to the minute they clock out, unless they clock out later than

lOII.liW.I

3

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 64 Filed 11/24/2008 Page 4 of 5
their expeeted time because they wasted time in non-work activities, in the judgment of their supervisor. Id.
In short. what is alleged to be true for purposes of processing line employee recovery is demonstrably untrue of quality assurance workers and what is true of quality assurance workers cannot support the FLSA violations pled. Therefore, Wayne Farms is entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing all three who have worked, during the longest arguable limitation period, only as quality assurance workers.
Respectfully submitted this tbe 24" day ofNovember, 2008. WAYNE FARMS LLC BY: BALCH & BINGHAM LLP sf R. Pepper Crutcber. Jr. R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. (7921) Anne Harlan Latino (I 02807) Attorney for Defendant Balch & Bingham LLP 401 E. capitol Street, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone (601) 965-8158 pcruteher@balch.com
4

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 70 Filed 12/17/08 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, et al. v. WAYNE FARMS LLC CONSOLIDATED WITH

PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION # 2:07cv1004-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, et al. v. WAYNE FARMS LLC

PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION #2:07cv1005-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the motion for partial summary judgment [Doc. #46]

(October 15, 2008) filed by Defendant Wayne Farms LLC. Defendant contends that two of the

Plaintiffs should be judicially estopped from asserting their claims of violations of the Fair Labor

Standards Act (“FLSA”) because they failed to list the claims as assets in their bankruptcy petitions.1 The Plaintiffs do not oppose the instant motion. For the reasons that follow, the

motion for partial summary judgment should be granted.

I. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence before the Court shows “that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” FED R. CIV. P. 56(b). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence

1 The Defendant seeks dismissal of the following Plaintiffs: Carolyn S. Hogeland and Dorothy Mae Peppers.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 70 Filed 12/17/08 Page 2 of 4
is such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the lawsuit under applicable law in the case. Id. There can be no genuine issue as to a material fact when a party fails “to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). This is true “since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoviing party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 323.
“[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247). If the moving party can meet the initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 1994).
II. “[T]he Bankruptcy Code and Rules impose upon bankruptcy debtors an express, affirmative duty to disclose all assets, including contingent and unliquidated claims.” In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 207-08 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 521(1)). “The duty of disclosure in a bankruptcy proceeding is a continuing one, and a debtor is required to disclose all potential causes of action.” Id. at 208 (quoting Youngblood Group v. Lufkin Fed. S&L Ass’n, 932 F. Supp. 859, 867 (E.D.Tex. 1996)). “[I]f the debtor has enough information
2

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 70 Filed 12/17/08 Page 3 of 4
prior to confirmation to suggest that it may have a possible cause of action, then that is a ‘known’ cause of action such that it must be disclosed.” Id. “Any claim with potential must be disclosed, even if it is ‘contingent, dependent, or conditional.’ ” Id.
“When a debtor fails to disclose a pending or potential claim in her bankruptcy petition, she is judicially estopped from bringing that claim later.” Kamont v. West, 83 F. App’x 1, 3 (5th Cir. Cir. 2003) (unpublished) (citing In re Coastal Plains, 179 F.3d at 210). “Judicial estoppel is a common law doctrine by which a party who has assumed one position in his pleadings may be estopped from assuming an inconsistent position.” In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d at 205.
A court should apply judicial estoppel if (1) the position of the party against which estoppel is sought is plainly inconsistent with its prior legal position; (2) the party against which estoppel is sought convinced a court to accept the prior position; and (3) the party did not act inadvertently. Judicial estoppel is particularly appropriate where, as here, a party fails to disclose an asset to a bankruptcy court, but then pursues a claim in a separate tribunal based on that undisclosed asset. Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc., 412 F.3d 598, 600 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted). In the case at bar, the first factor is met because each of the Plaintiffs in question omitted the FLSA claim from his or her bankruptcy filing despite the fact that the FLSA claims had accrued at the time the bankruptcy petitions were filed. See In re Superiro Crewboats, Inc., 374 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2004) (a plaintiff’s omission of a “claim from their mandatory bankruptcy filings is tantamount to a representation that no such claim existed”); see also Def.’s Exh’s 2-4 [Doc. #46] (October 15, 2008). The second factor has also been met because each of the Plaintiffs has either received a discharge under Chapter 7 or had a reorganization plan confirmed under Chapter 13. See Def.’s Exh’s 2-4 [Doc. #46]. Finally, because the Plaintiffs had a sufficient factual basis at the time they filed their petitions to know of and disclose their FLSA
3

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 70 Filed 12/17/08 Page 4 of 4
claims, the Court finds that the third factor is met and that the Plaintiffs’ failure to disclose was not inadvertent. See In re Coastal Plains, 179 F.3d at 210 (inadvertence can only be claimed when “the debtor either lacks knowledge of the undisclosed claims or has not motive for their concealment”); see also Gaskins v. Thousand Trails, 521 F. Supp. 2d 693, 697 (S.D.Oh. 2007) (“A debtor always has a motive for concealing potential causes of action in order to minimize income and assets.”). Because the Plaintiffs do not oppose the instant motion and have presented no countervailing evidence, the Court finds there to be no genuine issue of material fact and concludes that the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to these Plaintiffs. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims should be dismissed based on judicial estoppel.
III. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. #46] is granted and the two plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this, the 15th day of December, 2008.
s/ Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 72 Filed 12/17/08 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, et al. v. WAYNE FARMS LLC CONSOLIDATED WITH ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, et al. v. WAYNE FARMS LLC

PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION # 2:07cv1004-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION #2:07cv1005-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the motion for partial summary judgment [Doc. #43] (October 9, 2008) filed by Defendant Wayne Farms LLC. Defendant contends that seven of the Plaintiffs should be dismissed from this action because their claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) are time-barred.1 See 29 U.S.C.S. § 255(a). The Plaintiffs do not oppose the instant motion.
I. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence before the Court shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED R. CIV. P. 56(b). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence

1 The Defendant seeks dismissal of the following Plaintiffs: Traci S. Watkins, McKinley T. Jackson, Alethea Payne, Tammy Renee Richey, Mashika R. Robinson, Constance Vinson, and Baltazar C. Zamarripa.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 72 Filed 12/17/08 Page 2 of 3
is such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the lawsuit under applicable law in the case. Id. There can be no genuine issue as to a material fact when a party fails “to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). This is true “since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoviing party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 323.
“[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247). If the moving party can meet the initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 1994).
II. Claims alleging violations of the FLSA are subject to either a two- or a three-year statute of limitations, depending on whether the alleged violations were committed willfully. 29 U.S.C.S. § 255(a); see also Reich v. Bay, Inc. 23 F.3d 110, 117 (5th Cir. 1994). The statute is tolled only by the filing of a written consent to sue. 29 U.S.C.S. § 256. An employee who has not filed a written consent to sue within three years after his or her work ended has no timely FLSA claim. See id.
2

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 72 Filed 12/17/08 Page 3 of 3
Here, the Defendant has met its summary judgment burden by producing copies of Wayne Farms employment records. See Exh. 2 [Doc. #43-2] (October 9, 2008). The records establish the dates on which the eighteen Plaintiffs’ employment was terminated. Id. A review of the record in this case reveals that the seven Plaintiffs did not file notices of written consent to sue until more than three years after their employment with Wayne Farms had ended. See, e.g., [Doc. #5]. Because the Plaintiffs do not oppose the instant motion and have presented no countervailing evidence, the Court finds there to be no genuine issue of material fact and concludes that the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to these seven Plaintiffs. As a result, the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted.
III. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. #43] is granted and the seven plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this, the 17th day of December, 2008.
s/ Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 74 Filed 12/18/08 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, ET AL.

§

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

§

CONSOLIDATED WITH

§

§

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, ET AL. §

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1004-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1005-MTP
DEFENDANT

PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER On November 17, 2008, Defendant filed its motion (Doc. 59) seeking entry of partial summary judgment against 1 Plaintiff whom it contended should be dismissed because he cannot establish a claim for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Motion stated that the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he worked any overtime hours at Wayne Farms because after examining his actual personal time card swipes, he never worked more than 40 hours in any given work week. The time for response has expired and no opposition has been filed. The unopposed factual materials submitted with the Motion being adequate to support the related legal conclusions proposed therein, the Motion is granted, and the following Plaintiff is dismissed from this action, with prejudice.

104361.1

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 74 Filed 12/18/08 Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff Name Gallagher, Michael L.

Consent Filed1 9/13/07 (Doc. 75-2, p. 11, filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095)

So ordered this 18th day of December, 2008.
s/Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1This consent was originally filed in case 4:06cv2095 in the Northern District of Alabama. The N.D. Ala. case was transferred to this case, 2:07cv1004 on 11/20/07. See Doc.4 in 2:07cv1004: “Case transferred in from District of Alabama Northern; Case Number 4:06-cv-02095. Original file with documents numbered 1 - 84, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received.”
104361.1
2

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 77 Filed 12/19/08 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, et al. v. WAYNE FARMS LLC CONSOLIDATED WITH ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, et al. v. WAYNE FARMS LLC

PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION # 2:07cv1004-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION #2:07cv1005-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the motion for partial summary judgment [Doc. #63] (November 24, 2008) filed by Defendant Wayne Farms LLC. Defendant contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to three of the Plaintiffs as there is no genuine issue of material fact with regard to their Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). See 29 U.S.C.S. § 255(a).1 The Plaintiffs do not oppose the instant motion.
I. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence before the Court shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED R. CIV. P. 56(b). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for the nonmoving party.
1 The Defendant seeks dismissal of the following Plaintiffs: Margaretta M. Hicks, Denise Whiteside, Viekie L. Woods.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 77 Filed 12/19/08 Page 2 of 3
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the lawsuit under applicable law in the case. Id. There can be no genuine issue as to a material fact when a party fails “to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). This is true “since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoviing party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 323.
“[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247). If the moving party can meet the initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 1994).
II. The litigation in this case arises from the allegations that the Defendant has violated the FLSA by failing to compensate a number of its employees for work-related activities. In the instant motion, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs listed above can prove no such violation because they are quality assurance employees – rather than processing line employees – and were therefore not subject to the pay practices that gave rise to the litigation. In support of this contention, the Defendant has submitted a sworn declaration by Ryan Harper, the Quality Assurance Manager at the processing plant. See Def.’s Exh. 2 [Doc. #63-3] (November 24,
2

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 77 Filed 12/19/08 Page 3 of 3 2008). Harper’s declaration substantiates the Defendant’s arguments. As a result, the Defendant has met its burden under the summary judgment standard.
Here, the Plaintiffs do not oppose the instant motion and have presented no countervailing evidence. As a result, the Court finds there to be no genuine issue of material fact and concludes that the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to the aforementioned Plaintiffs.
III. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. #63] is granted and the aforementioned Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this, the 19th day of December, 2008.
s/Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 100 Filed 03/31/10 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

IN RE: WAYNE FARMS LLC FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACTION

CAUSE NO.: 2:07md1872-KS-MTP

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

This matter having previously come on to be heard on Motion for Approval of Class

Settlement and on Motion for Approval of Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Fee Application, and the Court

having granted said motions, the Order Granting Attorneys’ Fees [139] was entered December

23, 2009, and the Order Approving Class Settlement [138] was entered on August 17, 2009. It

has been over ninety (90) days since the final order was entered in this case and the Court finds

for docket control purposes that there is no further need for this case to remain and that a Final

Judgment of Dismissal should be entered herein. Additionally, the underlying individual cases

that were consolidated into this MDL litigation, being cases numbered:

2:07cv1009-KS-MTP 2:07cv1007-KS-MTP 2:07cv1006-KS-MTP 2:07cv1004-KS-MTP 2:07cv1000-KS-MTP 2:07cv1005-KS-MTP 2:07cv1008-KS-MTP 2:07cv1002-KS-MTP 2:07cv1001-KS-MTP 2:07cv1011-KS-MTP 2:07cv1003-KS-MTP 2:07cv1010-KS-MTP

have been fully resolved by the entry of the Order Approving Settlement herein and that there is

no further need for said cases to remain on this Court’s docket. For docket control purposes this

Judgment of Dismissal should apply to all of the above numbered consolidated cases, as well as

the main case herein, and all are hereby dismissed, subject only to the right of a party to raise

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 100 Filed 03/31/10 Page 2 of 2
with this Court the failure of a party to abide by the terms and conditions of the judgments and orders of this Court.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this, the 30th day of March, 2010. s/Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 87 Filed 01/14/09 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTISBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE et al.,

PLAINTIFFS

v.

Civil Action 2:07-cv-1004-KS-MTP

WAYNE FARMS LLC

DEFENDANT

CONSOLIDATED WITH

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN et al.,

PLAINTIFFS

v.

Civil Action 2:07-cv-1011-KS-MTP

WAYNE FARMS LLC

DEFENDANT

AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER

Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 8, Liaison Counsel have agreed that the claims

of certain Plaintiffs should be dismissed entirely, as set forth below. Each Plaintiff listed below was

employed by Wayne Farms only as a Maintenance and/or Sanitation worker during the longest

arguable limitations period – i.e., three years prior to consent filing. Maintenance and Sanitation

workers were not and are not subject to the pay practice that is the basis for the lawsuit. Each is

dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff Name Corrales, Jose D. Cowart, James William Dominguez, Hilario Edwards, Joe F., Jr.
Kelley, Larry

Dismissal Reason(s) ALB PL - 3 P Sanitation, Lead Person ALB PL - 1st Maintenance, Maintenance Class F-3 ALB PL - 1st Maintenance, Maintenance Class C-6 ALB PL - 1st Maintenance, Maintence Class F-3, Maintenance Lead III
ALB PL - 3 P Sanitation, Sanitation Tech I

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 87 Filed 01/14/09 Page 2 of 2

Swearengin, Kenneth White, Michael L. Worden, William A.

ALB PL - 1st Maintenance, Maintenace Class F-3, Maintenance Lead III
ALB PL - 1st Maintenance, Maintenance Class B-7, Maintenance Class H-1
ALB PL - 1st Maintenance, Maintenance Class C-6

So ordered this 14th day of January, 2009.
s/ Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So stipulated this 20th day of September, 2008.
s/R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. (7921) Balch & Bingham, LLP 401 E. Capitol Street, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 965-8158 pcrutcher@balch.com
s/William S. Hommel William S. Hommel (09934250) 1402 Rice Road, Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75703 (903) 596-7100

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 97 Filed 01/28/09 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, ET AL.

§

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

§

CONSOLIDATED WITH

§

§

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, ET AL. §

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1004-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1005-MTP
DEFENDANT

AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER On November 24, 2008, Defendant filed its motion (Doc. 65) seeking partial dismissal of, or judgment on the pleadings on, Plaintiffs’ claim for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for time spent clearing security and for time spent walking to and from security. Liaison Counsel have agreed that these claims should be dismissed entirely. Therefore, the Motion is

granted, and the Plaintiffs’ claims for overtime under the FLSA for time spent clearing security and

for time spent walking to and from security are dismissed with prejudice. So ordered this 28th day of January, 2009.

s/Keith Starrett United States District Judge
So stipulated this 23rd day of January, 2009.
s/ R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. (7921) Balch & Bingham, LLP 401 E. Capitol Street, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 965-8158 pcrutcher@balch.com
s/ William S. Hommel, Jr.
104862.1

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 97 Filed 01/28/09 Page 2 of 2 William S. Hommel, Jr. (09934250) William S. Hommel, Jr. P.C. 1402 Rice Road, Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75703 (903) 596-7100
2

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 43 Filed 10/09/08 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, ET AL.

§

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

§

CONSOLIDATED WITH

§

§

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, ET AL. §

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1004-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1005-MTP
DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (TIME BAR) COMES NOW Wayne Farms LLC, moving the Court to enter partial summary judgment
dismissing with prejudice 7 (7.5%) of our 93 Plaintiffs because their claims are time-barred even under the FLSA’s three year bar for willful violations. In support of this Motion, Wayne Farms would show:
1. If Plaintiffs were able to prove willful FLSA violations, the applicable statute of limitations would be three years. 29 U.S.C. § 255.
2. The statute is tolled only by the filing of a written consent to sue. A consent filed after the complaint does not relate back to the complaint’s filing date. Therefore, a former employee who does not file a consent within three years after his work ended has no timely FLSA claim.
3. The employment termination dates set forth in the following table are drawn from employment records that Wayne Farms has produced to Plaintiffs, and that are stipulated to be authentic. See Business Records Stipulation, Doc. 25, 2:07md1872. They cannot be genuinely

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 43 Filed 10/09/08 Page 2 of 4

disputed. The summary’s accuracy is attested by Exhibit 1 to this Motion, which also explains

why Wayne Farms has no records for some former employees terminated long ago.

4. The first page of each Plaintiff’s hours and earnings report from the Wayne

Farms’ payroll system is attached collectively as Exhibit 2. The report shows the termination

date of each Plaintiff.

5. The consent filing dates set forth in the table below are drawn from the Court’s

records, as shown by the document citations. The Court may take judicial notice of its own

records. These dates are not subject to genuine dispute.

6. These Plaintiffs should be dismissed, based on these genuinely undisputed facts:

Name

Terminated

Consent Filed

1 Burse, Traci S. Watkins 8/16/2004 (Ex. 2, p. 1) 2 Jackson, McKinley T. 7/29/19961 (Ex. 2, p. 2)

3 Payne, Alethea 4 Richey, Tammy Renee 5 Robinson, Mashika R.

No employment record (Ex. 2, p. 3) No employment record (Ex. 2, p. 4) 7/19/2004 (Ex. 2, p. 5)

6 Vinson, Constance

3/25/2003 (Ex. 2, p. 6)

7 Zamarripa, Baltazar C. 4/6/2004 (Ex. 2, p. 7)

9/30/07 (Doc. 76-2, p. 9 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095) 3/5/07 (Doc. 34, p. 4 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095) 3/5/07 (Doc. 34, p. 5 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095)2 10/18/06 (Doc. 1-2, p. 18 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095) 9/13/07 (Doc. 75-2, p. 35 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095) 10/18/06 (Doc. 1-2, p. 20 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095) 11/20/07 (Doc. 5, p. 21 filed in S.D. Miss. 2:07cv1004)

1 As noted in Exhibit 1, it is possible that Wayne Farms has no record because the Plaintiff worked for Wayne Farms so long ago that the relevant employment record is no longer available. This motion assumes this explanation for the lack of an employment record, rather than mis-representation of prior employment.
2 Her consent indicates that she worked for Tyson Foods in Albertville, AL, and not Wayne Farms.

99965.1

2

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 43 Filed 10/09/08 Page 3 of 4
7. On June 9, 2008, in accordance with Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7, defense counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a list of Plaintiffs whose claims defense counsel believed should be dismissed in the form of a dismissal spreadsheet. Each of the Plaintiffs listed in this Motion was designated as a requested dismissal, for the reason underlying this Motion – time-bar.
8. Plaintiffs were required to respond, in writing, by August 1, 2008; the Court granted them a final extension until October 1, 2008. See Doc. 35 in 2:07md1872.
9. Plaintiffs did not respond to the dismissal requests in writing. They disclosed no reason for rejecting dismissal. They identified no documents supporting their position. In short, they ignored these commands of Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7.
10. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16(f)(1)(C) states that the Court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney fails to obey a scheduling order or other pretrial order. Wayne Farms asks the Court to prohibit these disobedient Plaintiffs from opposing the factual assertions of this Motion as authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii).
WHEREFORE, Wayne Farms LLC moves the Court to enter partial summary judgment dismissing these 7 Plaintiffs from these actions, with prejudice, taxing to them all related costs.
Respectfully submitted this the 9th day of October, 2008. WAYNE FARMS LLC BY: BALCH & BINGHAM LLP s/Anne Harlan Latino Anne Harlan Latino (102807) R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. (7921) Attorney for Defendant Balch & Bingham LLP Telephone (601) 965-8158 pcrutcher@balch.com

99965.1

3

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 43 Filed 10/09/08 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 9, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:
William S. Hommel, Jr. 3304 South Broadway Avenue Tyler, Texas 75701-7818
Robert L. Salim 1762 Texas Street Natchitoches, LA 71457
Richard Celler Morgan & Morgan 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, Florida 33314
Mike Espy Lamar Life Building 317 E. Capitol Street, Suite 101 Jackson, MS 39201
s/Anne Harlan Latino Of Counsel

99965.1

4

 
 Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 44 Filed 10/09/08 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JIMMY BELUE, ET AL.

§

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

§

CONSOLIDATED WITH

§

§

ROBERT THOMAS DUNN, ET AL. §

§

VS.

§

§

WAYNE FARMS LLC

§

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1004-KS-MTP
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 2:07CV1005-MTP
DEFENDANT

BRIEF SUPPORTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (TIME BAR)

Even if Plaintiffs were able to prove FLSA violations, and that those violations were willful, so that the applicable statute of limitations would be three years rather than two,1 these

seven Plaintiffs should be dismissed, based on these genuinely undisputed facts:

Name

Terminated

Consent Filed

1 Burse, Traci S. Watkins 8/16/2004 (Ex. 2, p. 1) 9/30/07 (Doc. 76-2, p. 9 filed in

2 Jackson, McKinley T.

N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095) 7/29/19962 (Ex. 2, p. 2) 3/5/07 (Doc. 34, p. 4 filed in

N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095)

3 Payne, Alethea

No employment record (Ex. 2, p. 3)

3/5/07 (Doc. 34, p. 5 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095)3

1 This point is assumed here only for purposes of argument, in recognition that the record is not yet ripe for a ruling on Wayne Farms’ argument that the two year bar applies.
2 As noted in Exhibit 1, it is possible that Wayne Farms has no record because the Plaintiff worked for Wayne Farms so long ago that the relevant employment record is no longer available. This motion assumes this explanation for the lack of an employment record, rather than mis-representation of prior employment.
3 Her consent indicates that she worked for Tyson Foods in Albertville, AL, and not Wayne Farms.

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 44 Filed 10/09/08 Page 2 of 5

Name 4 Richey, Tammy Renee 5 Robinson, Mashika R. 6 Vinson, Constance 7 Zamarripa, Baltazar C.

Terminated
No employment record (Ex. 2, p. 4) 7/19/2004 (Ex. 2, p. 5)
3/25/2003 (Ex. 2, p. 6)
4/6/2004 (Ex. 2, p. 7)

Consent Filed
10/18/06 (Doc. 1-2, p. 18 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095) 9/13/07 (Doc. 75-2, p. 35 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095) 10/18/06 (Doc. 1-2, p. 20 filed in N.D. Ala. 4:06cv2095) 11/20/07 (Doc. 5, p. 21 filed in S.D. Miss. 2:07cv1004)

Wayne Farms submits that the relevant dates are not genuinely disputed and that the applicable law is clear. If Plaintiffs were able to prove willful FLSA violations, the applicable statute of limitations would be three years. 29 U.S.C. § 255. The FLSA limitation period extends backwards from the filing of a written consent to sue. A consent filed after commencement of an action does not relate back to the complaint’s filing date. See LaChapelle v. Owens Illinois, Inc., 513 F.2d 286, 288-89 (5th Cir. 1975); Grayson v. K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086, 1106 (11th Cir. 1996). The table set forth in the motion and reproduced above provides employment termination dates drawn from Wayne Farms payroll data. Wayne Farms has produced these employment records to Plaintiffs, and they are stipulated to be authentic. See Business Records Stipulation, Doc. 25, 2:07md1872. The consent filing dates set forth in the table above are drawn from the Court’s records, as shown by the document citations. The Court may take judicial notice of its own records. Thus, these Plaintiffs' claims were time-barred when their consents were filed. Consequently, they should be dismissed, with prejudice.4
On June 9, 2008, in accordance with Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7, defense counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a list of Plaintiffs whose claims defense counsel believed should be

4 Plaintiffs’ counsel has indicated several times in the last two years that they are willing to consider dismissing time-barred claimants. Following up on such statements, Wayne Farms has tendered several proposed orders. None has been accepted.

99966.1

2

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 44 Filed 10/09/08 Page 3 of 5

dismissed in the form of a dismissal spreadsheet. Each of the Plaintiffs listed in this Motion was designated as a requested dismissal, for the reason underlying this Motion – time-bar. Plaintiffs were required to respond, in writing, by August 1, 2008; the Court granted them a final extension until October 1, 2008. See Doc. 35 in 2:07md1872. Plaintiffs did not respond to the dismissal requests in writing. They disclosed no reason for rejecting dismissal. They identified no documents supporting their position. In short, they ignored these commands of Pretrial Order No. 2, paragraph 7. Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to adequately respond and their resulting failure to obey the Court’s Order, Wayne Farms requests that the Court exclude all facts and documentation suggesting that these Plaintiffs should not be dismissed.
Rule 16(f)(1)(C) states that the Court may “issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney . . . fails to obey a scheduling order or other pretrial order.” Because Plaintiffs have clearly failed to obey the Court’s Pretrial Order No. 2, any just sanctions or those allowed by Rule 37(b)(2)(A) are appropriate at this time. Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides sanctions for a party’s failure to obey a discovery order, including “(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.” In accordance with this Rule, Plaintiffs should be prohibited from opposing this Motion for Partial Summary and also prohibited from introducing any facts or documents regarding such matters into evidence.5

5 See e.g. Fleming & Assoc. v. Newby & Tittle, 529 F.3d 631 (5th Cir. 2008) (Federal Rule 16 permits exclusion of expert report submitted after scheduling order deadline); Edmonds v. Beneficial Miss., Inc., 212 Fed.Appx. 334 (5th Cir. 2007) (Federal Rules 26 and 37 permitted court to exclude credit report which plaintiff failed to disclose prior to discovery deadline); Barrett v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 95 F.3d 375, 380 (5th Cir. 1996) (Federal Rules 16 and 37 authorize court to impose sanctions on disobedient party by refusing to allow that party to introduce designated matters into evidence, such as expert opinions provided subsequent to the deadline required by the court’s scheduling order); Jones v. Flowserve FCD Corp., 73 Fed.Appx. 706 (5th Cir. 2003) (court did not abuse its discretion in striking summary judgment affidavit

99966.1

3

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 44 Filed 10/09/08 Page 4 of 5
In conclusion, because their claims were time-barred when their consents were filed and
because they should be prohibited from opposing this Motion or offering any evidence as a result
of their failure to obey Pretrial Order No. 2, these 7 Plaintiffs should be dismissed, with
prejudice. Respectfully submitted this the 9th day of October, 2008.
WAYNE FARMS LLC
BY: BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
s/Anne Harlan Latino Anne Harlan Latino (102807) R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. (7921) E. Russell Turner (9903) Attorneys for Defendant Balch & Bingham LLP Telephone (601) 965-8158 pcrutcher@balch.com

which contained three expert opinions not previously disclosed during discovery); Velez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375 F.3d 35, 42-43 (1st Cir. 2004) (defendants prohibited from opposing plaintiff’s claims because defendants failed to comply with scheduling order); Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218 (3rd Cir. 2003) (plaintiff precluded from introducing evidence of damages at trial after repeated non-compliance with discovery requests and scheduling orders which required such disclosure); Rabb v. Amatex Corp., 769 F.2d 996 (4th Cir. 1985) (appellate court affirmed trial court’s decision to preclude plaintiff’s evidence for failure to comply with discovery orders).

99966.1

4

Case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Document 44 Filed 10/09/08 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 9, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:
Seth M. Hunter Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC 404 Hemphill Street Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401
William S. Hommel, Jr. 3304 South Broadway Avenue Tyler, Texas 75701-7818
Robert L. Salim 1762 Texas Street Natchitoches, LA 71457
Richard Celler Morgan & Morgan 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, Florida 33314
Mike Espy Lamar Life Building 317 E. Capitol Street, Suite 101 Jackson, MS 39201
s/Anne Harlan Latino Of Counsel

99966.1

5

 
 Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 143 Filed 12/23/09 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

IN RE WAYNE FARMS LLC FLSA LITIGATION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07md1872-KS-MTP (ALL CASES)

ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, ETC. This cause is before the Court on Motion for Approval of Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Fee Application [137], no opposition to same by Defendant Wayne Farms, LLC, (hereafter “Wayne Farms”) and the Court after considering same finds as follows, to-wit: The Plaintiffs and Defendants have sought final approval of the settlement of this litigation brought on behalf of the employees at poultry processing plants of Wayne Farms in Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, Arkansas and Georgia. The genesis of this litigation is the claim that Wayne Farms has not properly paid its employees for the time spent donning and doffing protective gear and equipment and walking to and from work stations. This litigation has continued for over two years. After rigorous discovery, motion practice and negotiations, Wayne Farms has agreed to pay $1,375,000.00 for the benefit of the former and current employees in the Plaintiffs’ class and said amount includes all attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and the costs related to notice and settlement administration. The Plaintiffs have agreed to accept said amount and the Court has approved the settlement whereby the remaining Plaintiffs would be paid $300,000.00, which would be divided according to a specific formula. Since the Order Approving the Settlement was approved an additional 723 parties have opted in to participate in the settlement corpus. The procedure for opting in and notice to
1

Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 143 Filed 12/23/09 Page 2 of 7
potential opt ins was part of the original settlement agreement [139][141]. The original Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Terms of Settlement [138] found that there were 1,336 original Plaintiffs remaining out of an initial 2,416 Plaintiffs; 1,080 Plaintiffs have been dismissed for various reasons through the litigation process.
Prior to the approval of the settlement as outlined above [138], the Plaintiffs and Defendant had been put on notice and were given opportunity to object to the motion which set forth the requested attorneys’ fees. A hearing was held June 16, 2009, and no objection was voiced by the Plaintiffs to the settlement agreement or attorneys’ fees to be paid.
On July 24, 2009, a separate Motion for Approval of Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Fees [137] was filed, which attached as an exhibit itemizations of the time and expenses and affidavits as to the correctness of same.
THE DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES As part of its fairness determination, this Court must also determine that the proposed attorneys’ fees are reasonable. Strong v. BellSouth Telecomms, Inc., 137 F.3d 844, 849-50 (5th Cir. 1998). In its application Plaintiffs’ attorneys seek approval for an award of one million dollars as attorneys’ fees, plus $75,000.00 in costs. The corpus that goes to the 2,059 remaining and opt in Plaintiffs is $300,000.00. This Court is aware that there is a formula for paying said amounts to the remaining Plaintiffs and same is not to be paid out pro-rata, but the settlement amount of $145.70 per claimant would be provided for if the corpus of the settlement was to be divided by the number of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel do not ask that the Court award the amounts listed on the attachments to the motions for approval of Plaintiffs’ counsels fees, but allege in this current motion that the
2

Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 143 Filed 12/23/09 Page 3 of 7
fees will be divided pursuant to a private fee-sharing agreement. Private fee-sharing agreements have been approved by the Fifth Circuit and, in this case the Court does not have to apportion the figures among Plaintiffs’ counsels. See Longden v. Sunderman, 979 F.2d 1095, 1101 (5th Cir. 1992).
In this circuit the lodestar method is used to determine the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees’ in class and FLSA actions. Heidtman v. County of El Paso, 171 F.3d 1038, 1043 (5th Cir. 1999). The mechanics of this method are employed by multiplying the number of hours expended by an appropriate hourly rate. The Court must determine what the appropriate hourly rate is and should take into consideration the prevailing rate for attorneys work in the locality of the litigation. The Court may then decrease or enhance the lodestar based on the relative weights of twelve factors (as amended by subsequent law) set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974).
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel have provided sufficient proof of their lodestar hours as established by their attachments to document #137. This Court has also previously found $350.00 per hour to be reasonable for partners in this locality and other district courts of this circuit have done likewise. See Collins v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 568 F. Supp 2d 714. Based on the attorneys’ rate of $350.00 per hour and the paralegal rate of $100.00 per hour, the law firms involved have itemized $1,211,316.40 in attorneys’ fees and $75,118.64 in litigation costs. The requested amount for attorneys’ fees is one million dollars and requested costs reimbursement is $75,000.00 as set forth in the Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees. This Court has attempted to reconcile the recap sheet, which is attached to Exhibit A-3 [137-5], and the billings from some of the attorneys are not totaled as to attorney time and paralegal time. The
3

Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 143 Filed 12/23/09 Page 4 of 7
5,747.6 hours claimed is for total paralegal and attorney time. THE JOHNSON FACTORS
This Court is required to apply the Johnson1 factors. These factors are as follows: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the issues; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) the award in similar cases.
The Court will evaluate the factors as follows: (1) Time and labor required has been stated above and the Court accepts the representations of the attorneys. (2) The legal issues in this case were neither novel nor especially difficult and the attorneys have made claims to be specialists in the field and, therefore, are knowledgeable in this type of litigation. (3) This Court has found that while the attorneys may be skilled, there has been a certain amount of neglect that has been apparent in Plaintiffs’ counsels’ responses or non-responses to motions etc., that have been filed by the Defendant. There were numerous motions to dismiss throughout the litigation and there were numerous costs attached and ordered and there were occasions when the Court was actually forced to assess sanctions. On at least one occasion the Court was forced to issue a Show Case Order to require Plaintiffs to respond to a motion that the Court believed should have been decided in Plaintiffs’ favor. There were occasions when the Court was required to rule on certain motions which should have been confessed, but were neglected by the attorneys.
1Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974). 4

Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 143 Filed 12/23/09 Page 5 of 7
Additionally, many Plaintiffs were listed who could have been removed with some preliminary review. The Plaintiffs’ rights were ultimately protected, but much needless work was required by defense counsel and the Court. This Court finds that the skill and diligence used in this case require an adjustment of the attorneys’ fees requested. (4) It is obvious that if the attorneys were working on one case they could not be working on another. (5) The customary fee or hourly rate is not so much an issue in this case as it has been accepted by this Court and others in similar litigation. (6) Whether the fee is contingent is no longer a permissible factor. (7) There were no particular time limitations imposed in this case. (8) The amount of the settlement for the claimants was approximately 30% of the attorneys’ fees. In most cases the settlement is a number of times the attorneys fees. In the Collins case the settlement was three million dollars and the attorneys’ fee was $750,000.00, or an approximate 25% fee, when based on a percentage of the recovery. In this case the requested fee is 333% of the recovery. (9) The experience, reputation and the ability of the attorneys have previously been addressed. (10) The case was not undesirable. (11) The nature and length of the professional relationship is not a factor. (12) Awards in similar cases are not as much a factor in this case as in some. This Court is aware of the necessity of the class action vehicle to hold wrongdoers accountable in small damage cases. FLSA cases are a prime example of the use of this procedure to collect small amounts of damages for a large number of plaintiffs when the litigation is too expensive for single plaintiffs to pursue.
After considering all of the above, this Court finds that the attorneys’ fees above requested should be reduced by 20%, to a total of $800,000.00.
COSTS
5

Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 143 Filed 12/23/09 Page 6 of 7
The costs requested are $75,000.00. Costs incurred have been demonstrated to be $75,118.64. This Court finds that the costs of $75,000.00 should be allowed and were necessarily incurred in the prosecution of this litigation.
THE REAPPLICATION OF THE $200,000.00 IN ATTORNEYS’ FEES In this case the Defendants have agreed to pay $1,375,000.00 to settle the claims. Apparently, the Defendant has recognized some potential liability and has agreed to compromise the claims. If the Plaintiffs are paid a total of $300,000.00 and the attorneys are paid a total of $875,000.00 in fees and costs, there remains a balance of $200,000.00 to be paid by the Defendant Wayne Farms, LLC. This Court finds that the Defendant should not be allowed to reap a windfall as a result of this Court’s reduction of the attorneys fees requested. This Court finds that the $200,000.00 remaining in the settlement should be added to the corpus of the Plaintiffs and the 2,059 Plaintiffs should instead, divide a settlement corpus of $500,000.00, according to the formula established by the settlement documents.
CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Approval of Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Fee be partially granted and partially denied and that Plaintiffs’ counsel should be granted a fee from the settlement corpus in the amount of $800,000.00, which is to be divided according to their private fee sharing agreement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel should be reimbursed the sum of $75,000.00 in costs from the settlement corpus, and that the balance of $500,000.00 shall be divided among the remaining 2,059 Plaintiffs according to the formula established by the settlement documents.
6

Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 143 Filed 12/23/09 Page 7 of 7 SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this, the 23rd day of December, 2009. s/Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7

 
 Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 138 Filed 08/17/09 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

IN RE WAYNE FARMS LLC FLSA LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 2:07md1872 KS-MTP (ALL CASES)

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

This cause is before the Court on Joint Motion for Settlement Approval [134] filed by all parties hereto. In this Motion the parties request this Court to approve a compromise settlement of all issues except the quantum of attorneys’ fees to be awarded to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Following the filing of the Motion, this Court entered its Order setting hearing on Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement [136]. Pursuant to said Order, notice was sent to all interested parties and the hearing was held on July 29, 2009. No individual Plaintiffs appeared and both sides participated through their respective counsel.
Following the hearing, the Court took the Joint Motion for Settlement Approval under advisement and now having considered the oral arguments, briefs, applicable case law, etc., and on the request for preliminary approval, does hereby find as follows, to-wit:
I. Overview of This Litigation This case is a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) overtime case involving production workers at Defendant’s chicken processing plants in Laurel, Mississippi; Union Springs, Alabama; Decatur, Alabama; Enterprise Alabama; Albertville, Alabama; College Park, Georgia; and Pendergrass, Georgia. At one time there were 2,416 Plaintiffs, but through the various

1

Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 138 Filed 08/17/09 Page 2 of 5
motion-driven dismissals, the number has been reduced to 1,336 Plaintiffs. This litigation has continued over two years and has involved numerous motions, voluminous discovery, and contentious litigation. The claims of Plaintiffs are that they were not paid for certain time that they spent walking to the production line and donning and doffing certain protective clothing. Numerous arguments have been made by Defendant, including the Section 203(o) exclusion, the defense that the time spent is de minimis, and the assertion that Plaintiffs have been paid for the time that they claim. Numerous factual disputes remain.
Following the extensive litigation, the parties mediated over a period of weeks the claims and as a result of the mediation the Settlement Agreement that is attached as Exhibit “A” to the Motion for Settlement Approval [134] herein has evolved.
II. Standard of Review This Court is required to determine whether or not the settlement is “a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Collins v. Sanderson Farms, 568 F. Supp. 2d 714, 719 (E.D.La. 2008) (quoting Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354) This Court finds that the applicable law for the issues before this Court is succinctly set forth in the Collins decision above described and this Court will not state all of the reasoning but adopts the reasoning of Judge Berrigan in the well-written Collins decision.
a. Bona Fide Dispute One of the issues that must be determined by this Court is whether or not there was a bona fide dispute. A sojourn through the docket sheet and a cursory reading of the pleadings indicates that the claims by Plaintiffs were denied and adamantly disputed by the Defendant. There were a number of intermediate decisions made by this Court that attest to the activity
2

Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 138 Filed 08/17/09 Page 3 of 5
among the parties herein. Significant and legitimate disputes arose and continue to be at issue. The bottom line is that this Court finds that there is a genuine dispute between the parties. b. Fair and Reasonable “Although Rule 23 does not control FLSA collective actions, many courts have adopted
many of Rule 23's procedures in such allegations by analogy, in an exercise of their discretion to manage the litigation of collective actions under § 216(b).” Collins, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 721. Under Rule 23, a court should consider the following six factors to determine whether a settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable:
1. the existence of fraud or collusion behind the settlement; 2. the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; 3. the complexity, expense and likely duration of litigation; 4. the probability of plaintiffs’ success on the merits; 5. the range of possible recovery; and 6. the opinions of class counsel, class representatives and absent class members. Id. at 722 (citing Reed v. General Motors Corp., 703 F.2d 170, 172 (5th Cir. 1983)).
i. The Existence of Fraud or Collusion Behind the Settlement This Court can presume an absence of fraud or collusion but there is and has been no evidence of fraud or collusion among the parties to this settlement. This was an arms length settlement hammered out over a number of weeks by a skilled mediator.
ii. The Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of Discovery Completed At the time of the settlement the case was still in discovery and extensive discovery had been propounded. Neither side is entering into this settlement blind. Both sides have extensive
3

Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 138 Filed 08/17/09 Page 4 of 5
knowledge of the other side’s claims. iii. The Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration of Litigation
This case involves a number of Plaintiffs in three or more states. Each case has a number of legal issues and factual issues unresolved. This case will be very expensive and complex to finally resolve and settlement would be in the interest of both sides.
iv. The Probability of Plaintiffs’ Success on the Merits There are sufficient legal and factual disputes and neither side can realistically be certain about the outcome of this case.
v. The Range of Possible Recovery There are not unlimited damages in this case. Each Plaintiff has claimed a finite amount of unpaid minutes. The recovery range is not significantly broad, and the range of possible recovery is from zero to a few hundred dollars per person.
vi. The Opinions of Class Counsel, Class Representatives and Absent Class Members No class member objected following notice and class counsel supports the settlement. III. Attorneys’ Fees The settlement also addresses attorneys’ fees. There has been a separate Motion filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel [137] requesting approval of attorneys’ fees. This Order does not address Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees of Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court will enter a separate order on the attorney’s fees. IV. Pending Matter Also, there was an Order entered by this Court on a Motion filed by defense counsel
4

Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 138 Filed 08/17/09 Page 5 of 5
[101]. The Court was reconsidering this Opinion and Order at the time the settlement was announced and this Court did not conclude the reconsideration motion. The Court restates, as stated in the hearing on this current Motion, that it would be entering a subsequent opinion reconsidering the Opinion and Order [101] and this Order of Reconsideration will be entered at a later time by this Court.
V. Time to Notify Additional Opt-Ins Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel will solicit opt-in consents from additional potential class members. This additional opt-in period will be 60 days from the date of mailing and the mailing will occur within one week of the entry of this Order. All additional opt-ins will be included pro rata in the settlement corpus of $300,000. VI. Conclusion This Court finds that the Settlement Agreement should be preliminarily approved by this Court and that notices to additional potential opt-ins should proceed forthwith. Sixty days from the date of mailing of the notices, the period for additional opt-ins will be concluded and the settlement corpus will be divided pro rata among the current plaintiffs and subsequent additional opt-ins. This Court makes no decision on the Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ fees [137] and will enter its order on this Motion subsequent to this Order. Additionally, this Court reserves the right to enter the order reconsidering the Memorandum Opinion and Order [101]. SO ORDERED this the 17th day of August, 2009.
s/ Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5

 
 Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 147 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FROM THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

IN RE WAYNE FARMS LLC FLSA LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 2:07-md-1872-KS-MTP (ALL CASES)

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Reopen and to Seal Payment List [# 145].

The following cases were consolidated into this MDL litigation:

2:07cv1009-KS-MTP 2:07cv1007-KS-MTP 2:07cv1006-KS-MTP 2:07cv1004-KS-MTP 2:07cv1000-KS-MTP 2:07cv1005-KS-MTP 2:07cv1008-KS-MTP 2:07cv1002-KS-MTP 2:07cv1001-KS-MTP 2:07cv1011-KS-MTP 2:07cv1003-KS-MTP 2:07cv1010-KS-MTP

The Court preliminarily approved a Settlement Agreement on August 17, 2009 [# 138].

The Court entered a subsequent order on December 23, 2009, regarding attorneys’ fees and

costs. [# 143]. In this Order, the Court instructed the parties that the Plaintiffs should “divide a

settlement corpus of $500,000.00, according to the formula established by the settlement

documents.” Order Approving Attorneys’ Fees, Etc. at 6 [# 143]. On March 31, 2010, the Court

entered a Judgment of Dismissal, noting that over ninety (90) days had passed since the entry of

the final order and that as the cases consolidated herein were fully resolved, the case was hereby

dismissed.

The parties now have filed the instant motion requesting that the record be reopened for

1

Case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP Document 147 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 2 the limited purpose of allowing the parties to file its plan for distribution of the claimant’s funds. The parties additionally request that the Court allow this distribution plan under seal pursuant to Local Rules for a period of one year. The Court has expressed clear reasons for sealing this document and the parties have narrowly tailored their request by limiting the time the document is to remain sealed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the case be reopened for the limited purpose of filing the agreed distribution plan.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the agreed payment list be filed under seal pursuant to L.U.CIV. R. 79 and that the document remain under seal for the period of one year.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this, the 10th day of June, 2010. s/Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 1 of 21
U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Hattiesburg) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07−cv−01004−KS−MTP

LEAD

Belue et al v. Wayne Farms, LLC Assigned to: District Judge Keith Starrett Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker Case in other court: Alabama Northern, 4:06−cv−02095 Cause: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/20/2007 Date Terminated: 03/31/2010 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jimmy Belue

represented by Joseph D Lane COCHRAN CHERRY GIVENS SMITH LANE &TAYLOR PC 163 W Main Street PO Box 927 Dothan, AL 36302 334−793−1555 Fax: 334−793−8280 Email: jlane@cochranfirm.com TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner THE COCHRAN FIRM PC 163 W Main Street PO Box 927 Dothan, AL 36302 334−793−1555 Fax: 334−793−8280 Email: shughes@cochranfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS &MILES PC PO Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103−4160 1−334−269−2343 Email: roman.shaul@beasleyallen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr COCHRAN CHERRY GIVENS SMITH LANE &TAYLOR PC 163 West Main Street PO Box 927 Dothan, AL 36302 1−334−793−1555 Fax: 1−334−836−2500 Email: scherry@cochranfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William S. Hommel − PHV , Jr. WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR., PC 130 Shelley Drive, Suite C Tyler, TX 75701 903/596−7100 Fax: 903/596−7464

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 2 of 21

Email: bhommel@hommelfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg THE COCHRAN FIRM 505 North 20th Street, Suite 825 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−930−6900 Fax: 205−930−6910 Email: bnomberg@cochranfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler MORGAN &MORGAN 284 South University Drive Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 954−318−0268 Fax: 954−333−3515 Email: richard@cellerlegal.com TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV THE COCHRAN FIRM − Birmingham 505 20th Street North, Suite 825 Birmingham, AL 35203 205/244−1115 Fax: 205/244−1171 Email: rcamp@cochranfirm.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS &MILES PC PO Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103−4160 1−334−269−2343 Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lisa Blankenship

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address)

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 3 of 21

TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Paul Naylor

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Rice

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 4 of 21

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Barbara D Baker TERMINATED: 01/08/2009

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 5 of 21

Erskine Baker TERMINATED: 01/16/2009

Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Martin Chambers

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 6 of 21

Plaintiff Frances Chamblee
Plaintiff Jeffrey S Chandler

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007
Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address)

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 7 of 21

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Donna J Dooley

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jimmy Hamilton TERMINATED: 01/16/2009

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address)

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 8 of 21

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Carolyn Sue Hogeland TERMINATED: 12/17/2008

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address)

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 9 of 21

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wendy Mendel

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kathy Moore

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 10 of 21

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Judy S Oliver

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Bruce T Poe

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 11 of 21

Plaintiff Tammy Renee Richey TERMINATED: 12/17/2008
Plaintiff Betty R Tipton TERMINATED: 01/16/2009

Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007
Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007
Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 12 of 21

Plaintiff
Constance Vinson TERMINATED: 12/17/2008

Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007
Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007
Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 13 of 21

Plaintiff Jenifier Wynn
Plaintiff Don Mitchell Jackson TERMINATED: 01/16/2009

represented by Joseph D Lane (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lance Harrison Swanner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel A Cherry , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bernard D Nomberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard B Celler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007
Robert Joseph Camp − MDL−PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roman A Shaul (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Daniel Miles , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Don Mitchell Jackson PRO SE

V.
Consol Plaintiff
Robert Thomas Dunn TERMINATED: 01/16/2009

represented by Seth M. Hunter SETH M. HUNTER, ATTORNEY &COUNSELOR AT LAW, PLLC 100 Dudley W. Conner Street Hattiesburg, MS 39401 601/450−8682 Fax: 601/450−8683 Email: sethmhunter@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L. Salim − MDL−PHV ROBERT SALIM, ATTORNEY 1762 Texas Street Natchitoches, LA 71457 318/352−5999 Fax: 318/352−5998 Email: robertsalim@cp−tel.net

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 14 of 21

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William S. Hommel − MDL−PHV , Jr. WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR., PC 130 Shelley Drive, Suite C Tyler, TX 75701 903/596−7100 Fax: 903/596−7464 Email: smclaughlin@hommelfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff Christin Edmondson

represented by Seth M. Hunter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert L. Salim − MDL−PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William S. Hommel − MDL−PHV , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Wayne Farms, LLC a Delaware Corporation doing business in Alabama

represented by Ernest Russell Turner BALCH &BINGHAM, LLP − Jackson 401 East Capitol Street, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39201−2608 601/961−9900 Fax: 601/961−4466 Email: rturner@balch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Dorman Walker − MDL−PHV BALCH &BINGHAM, LLP − Montgomery P. O. Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101−0078 334/269−3138 Fax: 334/269−3115 Email: dwalker@balch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Johnson Sharp − MDL−PHV BALCH &BINGHAM, LLP − Birmingham P. O. Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201−0306 205/226−8714 Fax: 205−488−5708 Email: lsharp@balch.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wendy A Madden BALCH &BINGHAM LLP

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 15 of 21
Post Office Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201−0306 205−251−8100 Fax: 205−488−5708 Email: wmadden@balch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Harlan Latino BALCH &BINGHAM, LLP − Jackson 401 East Capitol Street, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39201−2608 601/965−8190 Fax: 877/635−8307 Email: alatino@balch.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pepper Crutcher , Jr BALCH &BINGHAM, LLP − Jackson 401 East Capitol Street, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39201−2608 601−965−8158 Fax: 888−254−2607 Email: pcrutcher@balch.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Joshua Archer − MDL−PHV BALCH &BINGHAM, LLP − Atlanta 30 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd., NW, Suite 700 Atlanta, GA 30308 404/261−6020 Fax: 866/332−8986 Email: jarcher@balch.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/20/2007 11/20/2007
11/20/2007
11/20/2007 11/20/2007

# Docket Text
2 COMPLAINT against Wayne Farms, LLC (Filing fee $ 350.00, receipt # 200 230581.) , filed by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(KSS, ) [Transferred from alnd on 11/20/2007.] (Entered: 10/19/2006)
3 AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Wayne Farms, LLC, filed by Paul Naylor, Michael Rice, Barbara D Baker, Erskine Baker, Martin Chambers, Jimmy Belue, Frances Chamblee, Jeffrey S Chandler, Donna J Dooley, Jimmy Hamilton, Carolyn Sue Hogeland, Wendy Mendel, Kathy Moore, Judy S Oliver, Bruce T Poe, Tammy Renee Richey, Lisa Blankenship, Betty R Tipton, Constance Vinson, Jenifier Wynn.(Camp, Robert) [Transferred from alnd on 11/20/2007.] (Entered: 02/15/2007)
1 ORDER Transferring Case to MDL: ORDER of Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferring this case to the Southern District of Mississippi for inclusion in MDL 1872; documents requested by transferee clerk electronically transferred to Clerk of Court in Southern District of Mississippi this day. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/9/2007. Associated Cases: 4:06−cv−02095−RDP, 4:07−cv−00647−RDP(KSS, ) [Transferred from alnd on 11/20/2007.] (Entered: 11/13/2007)
4 Case transferred in from District of Alabama Northern; Case Number 4:06−cv−02095. Original file with documents numbered 1 − 84, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. (Entered: 11/20/2007)
5 NOTICE OF FILING ADDITIONAL NOTICES OF CONSENT TO JOIN by plaintiffs; Notice was received on 11/19/07, before the case was opened in this Court.(LDR) Modified on 11/20/2007 (LDR). (Entered: 11/20/2007)

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 16 of 21

02/13/2008 02/21/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 05/19/2008
06/18/2008 06/27/2008 06/27/2008 06/27/2008 06/27/2008 06/27/2008 06/30/2008
07/28/2008 08/26/2008 08/27/2008 08/27/2008 08/27/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008

6 NOTICE of Filing Additional Consents by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hommel − PHV, William) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
7 ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES: 2:07cv1004 and 2:07cv1005 are hereby consolidated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on 2/21/08 (AKL) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
8 MOTION to Compel Discovery by Wayne Farms, LLC (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
9 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 8 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
10 NOTICE of Filing Good Faith Certificate by Wayne Farms, LLC (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
TEXT ONLY ORDER: The Defendant having withdrawn the Motion to Compel Discovery 8 during a telephonic hearing held this day, the motion to compel is hereby dismissed as moot. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on May 19, 2008 (KPM) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
11 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Complaint)(Hommel − PHV, William) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Anne Harlan Latino on behalf of Wayne Farms, LLC (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
13 RESPONSE to Motion re 11 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
14 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by Wayne Farms, LLC (Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
15 NOTICE of Service of Request for Admissions by Wayne Farms, LLC (Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
16 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Wayne Farms, LLC (Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #13, pursuant to the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing, proposed orders are not to be filed as a separate pleading or as an attachment. All proposed orders are to be e−mailed to the chambers of the appropriate judge. (LDR) Modified on 7/1/2008 (LDR). (Entered: 06/30/2008)
17 ORDER denying 11 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on July 28, 2008 (Harris, M.) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
18 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #18, attorney's office contacted regarding docketing separate entries for Response to Production Requests and Requests for Admission. (LDR) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
19 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Admissions by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
20 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
21 MOTION for Sanctions by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
22 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 21 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 08/29/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 17 of 21

09/02/2008 09/05/2008 09/09/2008 09/09/2008
09/09/2008 09/10/2008 09/10/2008 09/10/2008 09/10/2008 09/17/2008 09/17/2008 09/17/2008 09/24/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/06/2008 10/06/2008
10/07/2008 10/07/2008
10/09/2008
10/09/2008

23 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
24 ORDER denying 21 Motion for Sanctions Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on September 5, 2008 (Harris, M.) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
25 MOTION to Amend/Correct Answer (Unopposed) by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
26 ORDER granting 25 Unopposed Motion to Amend/Correct Answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on September 9, 2008 (KPM) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
27 AMENDED ANSWER to First 3 Amended Complaint, by Wayne Farms, LLC (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
28 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
29 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Admissions by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
30 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
31 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
32 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 09/17/2008)
33 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Admissions by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 09/17/2008)
34 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 09/17/2008)
35 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
36 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
37 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
38 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Admissions by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
39 Second MOTION for Sanctions (Failure to make Initial Disclosures) by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
40 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 39 Second MOTION for Sanctions (Failure to make Initial Disclosures) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
41 MOTION for Sanctions (No response to Standard Discovery) by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
42 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 41 MOTION for Sanctions (No response to Standard Discovery) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
43 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Time−Barred) by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Termination dates)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
44 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 43 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Time−Barred) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 10/09/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 18 of 21

10/14/2008
10/15/2008
10/15/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008 10/28/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008
11/06/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008

45 ORDER SETTING DEADLINES AND DATES FOR RESPONSE/REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT'S 43 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs' response to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is due on or before October 24, 2008. Defendant's rebuttal, if desired, is due on or before October 31, 2008. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on October 14, 2008 (dsl) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
46 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Bankruptcy) by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Hogeland petition, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Hogeland discharge, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Peppers petition, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Peppers discharge)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
47 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 46 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Bankruptcy) MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Bankruptcy) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
48 RESPONSE to Motion re 39 Second MOTION for Sanctions (Failure to make Initial Disclosures) filed by Jimmy Belue (Hommel − PHV, William) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
49 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Don Mitchell Jackson (Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
50 RESPONSE to Motion re 41 MOTION for Sanctions (No response to Standard Discovery) filed by Jimmy Belue (Hommel − PHV, William) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
51 REPLY to Response to Motion re 48 Response to Motion filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − part 1 − Email, # 2 Exhibit 1 − part 2 − Attachment to Email)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
52 REPLY to Response to Motion re 50 Response to Motion filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − part 1 − Email, # 2 Exhibit 1 − part 2 − Attachment to Email)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
53 MOTION to Compel Discovery by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
54 ORDER denying 41 Motion for Sanctions Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on October 31, 2008 (Harris, M.) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
55 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 39 Second MOTION for Sanctions (Failure to make Initial Disclosures) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC Objections to RRdue by 11/17/2008 Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on October 31, 2008 (Harris, M.) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
56 RESPONSE to Motion re 53 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Jimmy Belue (Hommel − PHV, William) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
57 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
58 REPLY to Response to Motion re 53 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
59 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Short Weeks by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Hours and earnings history)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
60 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 59 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Short Weeks filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
61 Response in Opposition re 55 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 39 Second MOTION for Sanctions (Failure to make Initial Disclosures) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC Objections to RRdue by 11/17/2008 Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on October 31, 2008 (Harris, M.) filed by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 11/17/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 19 of 21

11/24/2008
11/24/2008 11/24/2008 11/24/2008 11/24/2008
12/04/2008 12/04/2008 12/10/2008 12/17/2008
12/17/2008 12/17/2008
12/17/2008
12/17/2008 12/18/2008

62 Response in Opposition re 61 Response in Opposition re 55 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 39 Second MOTION for Sanctions (Failure to make Initial Disclosures) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC Objections to RRdue by 11/17/2008 Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on October 31, 2008 (Harris, M.) filed by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
63 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (QA) by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
64 MEMORANDUM in Support re 63 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (QA) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
65 MOTION to Dismiss (Security Claims) by Wayne Farms, LLC (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
66 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 65 MOTION to Dismiss (Security Claims) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, part 1 − Email from Pepper Crutcher to Bill Hommel, # 2 Exhibit 1, part 2 − Attachment to email − Burks security claim dismissal, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Response email from Bill Hommel to Pepper Crutcher, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Request for Admissions)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
67 Second MOTION for Sanctions (No Response to Standard Discovery) by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − List of Plaintiffs, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Latino Declaration)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
68 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 67 Second MOTION for Sanctions (No Response to Standard Discovery) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
69 ORDER granting 53 Motion to Compel Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on December 10, 2008 (Harris, M.) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
70 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in case 2:07−md−01872−KS−MTP; granting (46) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07−cv−01004−KS−MTP with prejudice as to plaintiffs Carolyn S. Hogeland and Dorothy Mae Peppers. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/15/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
71 JUDGMENT, defendant's 46 Motion for Summary Judgment as to plaintiffs Carolyn S. Hogeland and Dorothy Mae Peppers is granted and named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/15/08. (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
72 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in case 2:07−md−01872−KS−MTP; granting (43) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07−cv−01004−KS−MTP filed by defendants as to time−barred plaintiffs; case dismissed with prejudice as to the seven named plaintiffs. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/17/08 (LDR) Modified on 12/17/2008 (LDR). (Entered: 12/17/2008)
73 JUDGMENT, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to time−barred plaintiffs is granted; named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice: Traci S. Watkins, McKinley T. Jackson, Alethea Payne, Tammy Rene Richey, Mashika R. Robinson, Constance Vinson and Baltazar C. Zamarripa. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/17/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #72 modified to show document is Memorandum Opinion and Order. (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
74 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER in case 2:07−md−01872−KS−MTP; granting 59 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07−cv−01004−KS−MTP, dismissing with prejudice named plaintiff Michael L. Gallagher. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/18/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/18/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 20 of 21

12/18/2008
12/19/2008 12/19/2008
12/19/2008
12/31/2008 12/31/2008 01/07/2009
01/07/2009 01/08/2009 01/08/2009 01/14/2009 01/14/2009 01/14/2009
01/14/2009 01/15/2009 01/15/2009 01/16/2009

75 Order re motion # 65 , directing plaintiffs to file either a brief in opposition or a stipulation in response to said motion within twenty (20) days of the date of this order, making the filing due on or before January 7, 2009. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 18, 2008 (dsl) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
76 JUDGMENT, defendant's 59 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, plaintiff Michael L. Gallagher is dismissed. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/18/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
77 ORDER granting Defendant's 63 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The following plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice: Margaretta M. Hicks, Denise Whiteside and Viekie L. Woods. A separate judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be entered. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 19, 2008 (dsl) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
78 JUDGMENT, defendant's 63 Motion for Summary Judgment granted with prejudice dismissing named plaintiffs: Margaretta M. Hicks, Denise Whiteside, Viekie L. Woods. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/19/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
79 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
80 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
81 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 67 Second MOTION for Sanctions (No Response to Standard Discovery) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC Objections to RRdue by 1/22/2009 Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on January 7, 2009 (Harris, M.) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
82 ORDER WITHDRAWING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on January 7, 2009 (Harris, M.) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
83 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER in case 2:07−md−01872−KS−MTP; granting (67) Motion for Sanctions in case 2:07−cv−01004−KS−MTP Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/08/09 (AKL) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
84 JUDGMENT, the named plaintiffs in order are dismissed with prejudice. Barbara D Baker terminated. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/08/09 (AKL) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
85 BILL OF COSTS by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
86 MOTION FOR TAXATION OF COSTS AND EXPENSES by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
87 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 2, Liaison Counsel agreed claims of certain plaintiffs: Jose D. Corrales, James William Cowart, Hilario Dominguez, Joe F. Edwards, Jr., Larry Kelley, Kenneth Swearengin, Michael L. White and William A. Worden (maintenance and sanitation workers) are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/14/09 (LDR) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
88 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
89 Costs Taxed in amount of $ 1096.25 against plaintiffs. (LDR) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #87, Incorrect Civil Action No. indicated for Robert Thomas Dunn,et al v. Wayne Farms; correct Civil Action No. is 2:07cv1005−KS−MTP. (LDR) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
90 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 55 in 2:07−cv−01004−KS−MTP Report and Recommendations, re: 39 in

Case: 2:07-cv-1004 As of: 05/29/2010 04:30 PM CDT 21 of 21

01/16/2009 01/16/2009 01/16/2009 01/20/2009 01/22/2009 01/26/2009 01/28/2009
02/03/2009
02/24/2009 03/31/2010

2:07−cv−01004−KS−MTP, Second Motion for Sanctions; the claims of 13 plaintiffs listed in Exhibit 1 are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/16/09 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(LDR) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
91 BILL OF COSTS by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
92 MOTION FOR TAXATON OF COSTS AND EXPENSES by Wayne Farms, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
93 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
94 Costs Taxed (First Amended Bill of Costs) in amount of $ 1,096.25 against plaintiffs. (LDR) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
95 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
96 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
97 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER in case 2:07−md−01872−KS−MTP; granting (65) Motion to Dismiss in case 2:07−cv−01004−KS−MTP as to plaintiffs' claim for overtime under FLSA relating to clearing security. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/28/09 (LDR) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
98 ORDER granting (108) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07−md−01872−KS−MTP; granting (107) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07−cv−01000−KS−MTP; granting (122) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07−cv−01002−KS−MTP; granting (86) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses and (92) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07−cv−01004−KS−MTP; granting (108) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses and (115)Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07−cv−01006−KS−MTP; granting (104) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07−cv−01010−KS−MTP. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 2/3/09 (LDR) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
99 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Jimmy Belue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaul, Roman) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
100 JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL, all individual cases consolidated into this MDL have been fully resolved by the entry of the Order Approving Settlement; the Master Case and consolidated cases are hereby dismissed. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 3/30/10 (LDR) (Entered: 03/31/2010)

 
 CLOSED,MASTER,MTP
U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Eastern (Hattiesburg)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP

In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation Assigned to: District Judge Keith Starrett Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker Case in other court: MDL - IN RE: WAYNE FARMS
LLC FAIR LABOR STANDARDS, MDL NO. 1872 Cause: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

Date Filed: 11/05/2007 Date Terminated: 09/01/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair represented by William S. Hommel - PHV , Jr.

Labor Standards Act Litigation

WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR., PC

130 Shelley Drive, Suite C

Tyler, TX 75701

903/596-7100

Fax: 903/596-7464

Email: bhommel@hommelfirm.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ernest Russell Turner BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP - Jackson 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 1400 P. O. Box 22587 (39225) Jackson, MS 39201 601/961-9900 Fax: 601/961-4466 Email: rturner@balch.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party
Jeffery N. Luthi Clerk of the MDL Panel One Columbus Circle, NE Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building Room G-255, North Lobby

Washington, DC 20002 (202) 502-2800
Interested Party
Debra P. Hackett Clerk of Court U.S. District Court Middle District of Alabama P. O. Box 711 Montgomery, AL 36101-0711
Interested Party
James N. Hatten Clerk, U. S. District Court Northern District of Georgia Gainsville Division 201 Federal Building 121 Spring Street, N.E. Gainesville, GA 30501
Interested Party
James N. Hatten Clerk, U. S. District Court Northern District of Georgia Gainsville Division 201 Federal Building 121 Spring Street, N.E. Gainesville, GA 30501
Interested Party
Perry D. Mathis Clerk, U. S. District Court Northern District of Alabama 140 Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse 1729 5th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203
Interested Party
Perry D. Mathis Clerk, U. S. District Court Northern District of Alabama Huntsville U.S. Post Office & Courthouse

101 Holmes Avenue, N.E. Huntsville, AL 35801 Interested Party Robert J. Camp Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party Richard B. Celler Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party R. Pepper Crutcher Panel Attorney

represented by Robert Joseph Camp - MDL-PHV THE COCHRAN FIRM - Birmingham 505 20th Street North, Suite 825 Birmingham, AL 35203 205/244-1115 Fax: 205/244-1171 Email: rcamp@cochranfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard B. Celler - MDL-PHV MORGAN & MORGAN, PA - Fort Lauderdale 284 S. University Drive Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 954/318-0268 Email: rceller@forthepeople.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Pepper Crutcher , Jr. BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP - Jackson 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 1400 P. O. Box 22587 (39225) Jackson, MS 39201 601/961-9900 Fax: 601/961-4466 Email: pcrutcher@balch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Harlan Latino BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP - Jackson 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 1400 P. O. Box 22587 (39225) Jackson, MS 39201 601-965-8137 Fax: 877-304-0194

Interested Party William S. Hommel, Jr. Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party Seth M. Hunter Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party Roman Ashley Shaul Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party

Email: alatino@balch.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William S. Hommel - PHV , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William S. Hommel - MDL-PHV , Jr. WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR., PC 130 Shelley Drive, Suite C Tyler, TX 75701 903/596-7100 Fax: 903/596-7464 Email: smclaughlin@hommelfirm.com (Inactive) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Seth M. Hunter DUKES DUKES & HUNTER P. O. Box 2055 Hattiesburg, MS 39403 601/544-4121 Fax: 601/544-4425 Email: shunter@jdukeslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Roman Ashley Shaul BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. P. O. Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 334/269-2343 Fax: 334/954-7555 Email: roman.shaul@beasleyallen.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard D. Nomberg Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party Lance Harrison Swanner Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party Samuel A. Cherry Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party Wilson Daniel Miles, III Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs

represented by Bernard D. Nomberg - MDL-PHV THE COCHRAN FIRM - Birmingham 505 20th Street North, Suite 825 Birmingham, AL 35203 205/930-6900 Fax: 205/930-6910 Email: bnomberg@cochranfirm.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lance Harrison Swanner - MDL-PHV COCHRAN, CHERRY, GIVENS, SMITH, LANE & TAYLOR, PC P. O. Box 927 Dothan, AL 36302-0927 334/793-1555 Fax: 334/836-2500 Email: lanceswanner@cochranfirm.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Samuel A. Cherry - MDL-PHV , Jr. COCHRAN, CHERRY, GIVENS, SMITH, LANE & TAYLOR, PC P. O. Box 927 Dothan, AL 36302-0927 334/793-1555 Fax: 334/836-2500 Email: scherry@cochranfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Wilson Daniel Miles - MDL-PHV , III BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street P. O. Box 4160 (36103-4160) Montgomery, AL 36104-4160 334/269-2343 Fax: 334/954-7555 Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party Robert L. Salim Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party Deirdre Maria Stephens Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party Tisha Rae Tallman Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party Mike Espy Panel Attorney for Plaintiffs
Interested Party

represented by Robert L. Salim - MDL-PHV ROBERT SALIM, ATTORNEY 1762 Texas Street Natchitoches, LA 71457 318/352-5999 Fax: 318/352-5998 Email: robertsalim@cp-tel.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deirdre Maria Stephens - MDL-PHV MORGAN & MORGAN, PA - Atlanta 191 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 4200 P. O. Box 57007 (30360) Atlanta, GA 30303 404/965-8811 Fax: 404/965-8812 Email: djohnson@forthepeople.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Tisha Rae Tallman - MDL-PHV MORGAN & MORGAN, PA - Atlanta 191 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 4200 P. O. Box 57007 (30360) Atlanta, GA 30303 404/965-8811 Fax: 404/965-8812 TERMINATED: 07/16/2008 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mike Espy MIKE ESPY, PLLC 4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 205 Jackson, MS 39211 601-355-9101 Email: mike@mikespy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Dorman Walker Panel Attorney for Defendant
Interested Party Lisa Johnson Sharp Panel Attorney for Defendant
Interested Party Wendy Ann Madden Panel Attorney for Defendant
Interested Party E. Russell Turner Panel Attorney for Defendants

represented by J. Dorman Walker - MDL-PHV BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP Montgomery P. O. Box 78 The Winter Building 2 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 334/269-3138 Fax: 334/269-3115 Email: dwalker@balch.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Johnson Sharp - MDL-PHV BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP Birmingham P. O. Box 306 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1500 (35203-4642) Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 205/226-8714 Fax: 205-488-5708 Email: lsharp@balch.com (Inactive) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Wendy Ann Madden - MDL-PHV ADAMS AND REESE, LLP Birmingham 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 3000 Birmingham, AL 35203-3367 205/226-3447 Fax: 205/488-5871 Email: wmadden@balch.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ernest Russell Turner BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 401 E Capitol Street, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39201 601-965-8159 Fax: 888-304-1095

Interested Party Thomas Joshua Archer Panel Attorney for Defendant
Interested Party Hugh Brown McNatt Panel Attorney for Defendant
Interested Party Michael J. Bowers Panel Attorney for Defendant
Interested Party Sandy E. Clause Panel Attorney

Email: rturner@balch.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas Joshua Archer - MDL-PHV BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP - Atlanta 30 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd., NW, Suite 700 Atlanta, GA 30308 404/261-6020 Fax: 866/332-8986 Email: jarcher@balch.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Hugh Brown McNatt - MDL-PHV BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP - Atlanta 30 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd., NW, Suite 700 Atlanta, GA 30308 404/261-6020 Fax: 404/261-3656 Email: hmcnatt@mcnattandgreene.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael J. Bowers - MDL-PHV BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP - Atlanta 30 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd., NW, Suite 700 Atlanta, GA 30308 404/261-6020 Email: mbowers@balch.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sandy E. Clause - MDL-PHV SINGLETON LAW FIRM 4050 Linwood Avenue Shreveport, LA 71108 318/631-5200 Fax: 318/636-7759 Email: sclausesinglaw@shreve.net (Inactive) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party W. James Singleton
Interested Party Anne Harlan Latino Panel Attorney for Defendant

represented by W. James Singleton - MDL-PHV SINGLETON LAW FIRM 4050 Linwood Avenue Shreveport, LA 71108 318-631-5200 Fax: 318-636-7759 Email: singlaw@shreve.net (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Harlan Latino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/05/2007
11/05/2007 11/05/2007 11/05/2007 11/07/2007 11/07/2007

# Docket Text
1 TRANSFER ORDER from Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 USC 1407, that the actions listed pending in districts other than the Southern District of MS, are transferred to the Southern District of MS, Hattiesburg Division, creating MDL 1872. (LDR) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
2 Letter to Judge Keith Starrett from Jeffery N. Luthi, Clerk of MDL Panel, dated 11/2/07 in re: attached copy of Transfer Order filed by Judicial Panel of MDL. (LDR) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
REFERENCE MUST BE MADE TO THE INDIVIDUAL DOCKET SHEET FOR ENTRIES RELATING ONLY TO INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS. (LDR) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
3 PANEL ATTORNEY SERVICE LIST filed. (LDR) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
4 Letter to individual courts that will be transferring cases to the Southern District of MS, Hattiesburg Division re: MDL 1872 - Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation. (LDR) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #4, copies of individual letters to courts mailed to Jeffery N. Luthi, Clerk of the MDL Panel in Washington, DC. (LDR) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/27/2007
11/28/2007 11/28/2007 12/18/2007

Receipt of copy of Transfer Order, docket sheet, original complaint with exhibits, and First Amended Complaint received from Alabama Middle District (Dothan) No. 1:06cv950-MEF-WC; Our Case No. 2:07cv1000KS-MTP. (LDR) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
Receipt of copy of Transfer Order, docket sheet, original complaint with exhibits, and First Amended Complaint received from Alabama Middle District (Montgomery) No. 2:06cv951-MEF-WC; Our Case No. 2:07cv1002KS-MTP. (LDR) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
Receipt of copy of Transfer Order, docket sheet, original complaint with exhibits,received from Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) No. 1:07cv1154-CAP; Our Case No. 2:07cv1008KS-MTP. (LDR) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith Starrett : Status Conference held on 11/27/2007. A case management conference is set for Thursday, January 24, 2008 at 9:00 a.m., Colmer Federal Courthouse, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Said conference will be presided over by U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett and U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. Ten (10) days prior to said hearing the attorneys for the parties shall provide Judge Starrett and Judge Parker a written list of issues for the hearing. An order setting the hearing, etc., will be entered. Participating in the status conference was: Honorable R. Pepper Crutcher and Honorable William Hommel. (Reeves, Donna) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael T. Parker: Status Conference held on 11/27/2007. Participants: Pepper Crutcher and William Hommel. (KPM) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
Attorneys representing both the plaintiffs and defendants from Civil Action No. 2:07cv1000KS-MTP through 2:07cv1011KS-MTP have been added to this Master Case 2:07md1872KS-MTP as interested parties. Attorneys also remain active in their individual civil actions. (LDR) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
5 ORDER SETTING HEARING ON PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ORDER, ETC. The initial case management conference for the purpose of entering a practice and procedure order is set for January 24, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom One, Colmer Federal Building, 701 N. Main Street, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. If Court intervention is advisable on the form of the notice prior to the case management conference to help resolve the form of the notice, then same should be requested. Signed by Judge Keith Starrett on December 18, 2007 (dsl) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

01/23/2008 01/24/2008 01/24/2008
01/24/2008 01/24/2008
01/25/2008 01/25/2008 02/21/2008 02/21/2008

6 Joint MOTION To Approve Mailed Notice of Suit by R. Pepper Crutcher (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
7 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on January 24, 2008 (KPM) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Keith Starrett and Magistrate Judge Michael Parker: Status Conference held on 1/24/2008. An Agreed Order will be entered. Appearances: R. Pepper Crutcher, Barbara S. Mixtarz, Dorman Walker,Rusty Turner for Wayne Farms; Roman Shaul, Seth Hunter, Robert Camp, Bill Hommel for plaintiffs. (scp) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
8 ORDER granting 6 Motion for Approval of Mailed Notice of Suit, as set forth therein. The Court will permit new Plaintiffs to join this action under specific conditions on or before April 24, 2008. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/24/08 (scp) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Keith Starrett and Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: Status Conference held on 1/24/2008. Appropriate orders will be entered. PARTICIPANTS: R. Pepper Crutcher, Barbara Mistarz, Dorman Walker and Rusty Turner for Wayne Farms; Roman Shaul, Seth Hunter, Robert Camp and Bill Hommel for Plaintiffs. (KPM) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
9 PRETRIAL ORDER No. 1 - Practice and Procedure Order Upon Transfer Pursuant to 28 USC 1407(a). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on January 25, 2008 (KPM) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2008: # 1 Schedule A & B, Exhibit C) (LDR). Modified on 2/20/2008 (LDR). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
Set Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 5/1/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, United States Courthouse, 701 N. Main Street, Hattiesburg, MS before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. (KPM) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/21/2008 regarding procedural issues. An order will follow. PARTICIPANTS: designated liaison attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants, William Hommel and Pepper Crutcher. (KPM) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
10 ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on February 21, 2008 (KPM) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/25/2008
04/07/2008 04/07/2008 04/07/2008 04/11/2008 04/22/2008 04/22/2008 04/30/2008

11 NOTICE of Defense Suggestions of Agenda Items by R. Pepper Crutcher re 9 Pretrial Order, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pretrial Order No. 2: Discovery Scope and Schedule, # 2 Exhibit Notice of Deposition by Written Questions (Inactive Employees), # 3 Exhibit Notice of Deposition by Written Questions (Active Employees), # 4 Exhibit Defense Interrogatories to Employee Plaintiffs, # 5 Exhibit Defense Interrogatories to Non-Employee Plaintiffs, # 6 Exhibit Defense Production Requests to Employee Plaintiffs, # 7 Exhibit Defense Production Requests to Non-Employee Plaintiffs, # 8 Exhibit Defense Admission Requests to Employee Plaintiffs, # 9 Exhibit Defense Admission Requests to Non-Employee Plaintiffs)(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
12 MOTION Entry of Pretrial Order No. 2 by R. Pepper Crutcher (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exh. 1a to Order, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 1b to Order, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 2a to Order, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 2b to Order, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 3 to Order, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 4a to Order, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 4b to Order)(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
13 MEMORANDUM in Support re 12 MOTION Entry of Pretrial Order No. 2 filed by R. Pepper Crutcher (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
14 CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER from Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, re: MDL 1872, transferring Civil Action No. 5:07-1942, Martha Woods v. Wayne Farms LLC from the Western District Louisiana, to the Southern District of Mississippi for coordinated/consolidated pretrial proceedings. (LDR) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
15 NOTICE of Pending Motions by R. Pepper Crutcher (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
16 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Control Plan by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
17 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 16 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Control Plan filed by William S. Hommel, Jr (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
18 RESPONSE to Motion re 16 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Control Plan filed by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 04/30/2008)

04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 05/01/2008 05/13/2008
05/14/2008
05/15/2008

19 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 18 Response to Motion For Entry of Discovery Control Plan filed by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix)(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
20 ATTACHMENT re 18 Response to Motion for Entry of Discovery Control Plan by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #18, attorney's office informed that the attachment marked Exhibit 1 was incomplete, attorney has refiled attachments marked Exhibit 1 and Exhibit B as Attachment at #20. (LDR) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #19, attorney informed there are missing pages as to the Appendix that are attached; attorney to refile all appendix as attachments. (LDR) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
21 ATTACHMENT re 19 Memorandum in Support of Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Discovery Control Plan by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix)(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: Pretrial Conference held on 5/1/2008. An order will be entered. PARTICIPANTS: Robert Camp, Bill Hommel and Seth Hunter for Plaintiffs; Pepper Crutcher, Dorman Walker and Rusty Turner for Defendants. (KPM) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
Set Hearings: At the request of the parties and having confirmed their availability, a TELEPHONIC Status Conference is set for 5/14/2008 11:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. Bill Hommel is responsible for initiating the conference call and shall contact Judge Parker's chambers (601.544.9100) when all parties are connected. (KPM) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/14/2008 to address pending case management issues. The telephone conference will reconvene on Monday, 5/19/08, at 2:00 p.m. with Bill Hommel initiating the call and connecting the parties to Judge Parker's chambers (601.544.9100). (KPM) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
Set Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/19/2008 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. Bill Hommel is responsible for initiating the conference call and shall contact Judge Parker's

05/19/2008 05/20/2008 05/20/2008 06/04/2008 06/05/2008 06/06/2008
06/06/2008

chambers (601.544.9100) when all parties are connected. (KPM) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/19/2008. An order will be entered. PARTICIPANTS: Bill Hommel and Richard Celler for Plaintiffs; Rusty Turner, Dorman Walker, Pepper Crutcher for Defendants. (KPM) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
22 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 2 Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on May 20, 2008 (Harris, M.) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 12 Motion for Entry of Pretrial Order No. 2 and 16 Motion for Entry of Discovery Control Plan, in light of Court's entry of 22 Pretrial Order No. 2. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on May 20, 2008 (Harris, M.) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
Set Hearings: Having confirmed the availability of liaison counsel, the court has set a telephonic Status Conference for 6/6/2008 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. Liaison counsel for plaintiffs is responsible for initiating the conference call and shall contact Judge Parker's chambers (601.544.9100) when all parties are connected. (KPM) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
23 Subpoena Returned Executed as to MDM Services Group, LLC. (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: Status Conference held on 6/6/2008 to address procedural matters identified in the May 2008 status report, to discuss the proposed filing of an amended complaint and to arrive at a set of standardized discovery requests. The court will enter an order extending the deadline for moving to amend the complaint until June 13, 2008. The parties will also revise the proposed standardized discovery requests to reflect the decisions and modifications agreed to by the parties or directed by the court. The parties shall submit a proposed order to the court by June 13, 2008, adopting the standardized discovery, as modified. PARTICIPANTS: Richard Celler and Seth Hunter for Plaintiffs; Pepper Crutcher for Defendants. (KPM) Modified on 6/6/2008 (KPM). (Entered: 06/06/2008)
Plaintiffs' Ore Tenus MOTION for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint. (KPM) (Entered: 06/06/2008)

06/06/2008
06/12/2008 06/19/2008 06/25/2008 06/27/2008 07/16/2008
07/28/2008
07/31/2008 08/07/2008 08/07/2008 08/12/2008 08/19/2008

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting Plaintiffs' Ore Tenus Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint. On or before 6/13/08, plaintiffs shall file their motion to amend complaint or shall submit an agreed order to the court granting them leave to file same. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on June 6, 2008 (KPM) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
24 Joint MOTION Extension of Deadlines by Seth M. Hunter (Hunter, Seth) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
25 STIPULATION OF BUSINESS RECORDS by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3, # 2 Exhibit 4-7, # 3 Exhibit 8)(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
26 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Tisha R. Tallman by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Order)(Tallman - MDL-PHV, Tisha) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Anne Harlan Latino on behalf of R. Pepper Crutcher (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 26 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Tisha Rae Tallman - MDL-PHV terminated. No further written order will issue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on July 16, 2008 (Parker, Michael) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 24 Joint Motion for Extension of Deadlines. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on July 28, 2008 (Harris, M.) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
28 NOTICE of Initial Disclosures by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel PHV, William) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
29 MOTION to Amend/Correct 22 Order by R. Pepper Crutcher (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
30 MEMORANDUM in Support re 29 MOTION to Amend/Correct 22 Order filed by R. Pepper Crutcher (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
31 NOTICE of First Supplemental Initial Disclosures by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
32 NOTICE of Second Supplemental Initial Disclosures by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 08/19/2008)

08/26/2008 08/26/2008 08/28/2008
09/04/2008
09/05/2008 09/16/2008 09/25/2008 09/30/2008 10/01/2008 10/03/2008
10/03/2008

33 NOTICE of Third Supplemental Initial Disclosures by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
34 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Responses by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
Set Hearings: Having confirmed the availability of liaison counsel, the court set a TELEPHONIC Status Conference for 9/4/2008 3:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. Liaison counsel for plaintiffs is responsible for initiating the conference call and shall contact Judge Parker's chambers (601.544.9100) when all parties are connected. (KPM) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/4/2008. An order will be entered. PARTICIPANTS: William Hommel for Plaintiffs; Pepper Crutcher, Rusty Turner and Anne Harlan Latino for Defendants. (KPM) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
35 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion to Amend/Correct Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on September 5, 2008 (Harris, M.) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
36 NOTICE of Filing Fourth Supplemental Initial Disclosures by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
37 NOTICE of Filing Fifth Supplemental Initial Disclosures by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
38 NOTICE of Initial Disclosures by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel PHV, William) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
39 NOTICE of First Supplemental Initial Disclosures by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
41 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER as to Willie Hooks; Mary Ann Scott; Gregory Bowie and Joseph Burrows. These named plaintiff's have been terminated. Also listed in the Agreed Order of Dismissal were Sandra Gissendanner Barnes, Johnny J. Jackson and Mary Ann Scott. After a search of the file, no notice of consent was found in the Clerk's office. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 10/3/08 (LDR) Modified on 10/22/08 (LDR) (2:07cv1000-KS-MTP) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
42 AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL as to Valerie Cater; Jerome Chapman; Eddie Joe Coffey; Herman Coleman; Anthony Garner; Jimmy W. Garrett; Deron Lamar McClain; Marcus McDay; Milton L. Satchel; Mathew Schroer; Alfie Young; Randie O. Braden and Latina

10/06/2008 10/09/2008 10/16/2008
11/07/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/20/2008

Campbell. These plaintiffs have been terminated. The Agreed Order of Dismissal also named Kenneth O'Brien Abernathy, Darryl C. Anderson, Roger L. Jones, Eric D. King, Romunda T. Lewis, Lucy Eve Orr, Marlon P. Porter, Billy Scruggs, Janice N. Searcy, Roy C. Vinson, and Lewis Edward Williams as plaintiffs to be dismissed. However, after a search of the filings, a notice of consent could not be found in the Clerk's office. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 10/3/08 (LDR) Modified on 10/22/2008 (LDR). (2:07cv1006-KS-MTP) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
Set Hearings: Having confirmed the availability of liaison counsel, the court set a TELEPHONIC Status Conference for 10/16/2008 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. Liaison counsel for plaintiffs is responsible for initiating the conference call and shall contact Judge Parker's chambers (601.544.9100) when all parties are connected. (KPM) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
40 NOTICE Of Initial Disclosures by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel PHV, William) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/16/2008. The parties discussed various case issues and a new Case Management Order will be circulated and entered upon disposition of the pending motions for sanctions. PARTICIPANTS: Robert Camp, Bill Hommel and Seth Hunter for Plaintiffs; Pepper Crutcher and Anne Harlan Latino for Defendant. (KPM) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
Set Hearings: Having confirmed the availability of liaison counsel, a Telephonic Scheduling Conference is set for Monday, 11/10/2008, 9:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. Pepper Crutcher is responsible for initiating the conference call and shall contact Judge Parker's chambers (601.544.9100) when all parties are connected. (KPM) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: Telephonic Scheduling Conference held on 11/10/2008. An order will be entered. PARTICIPANTS: Bill Hommel and Seth Hunter for Plaintiffs; Pepper Crutcher and Anne Harlan Latino for Defendant. (KPM) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
43 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 2. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on November 10, 2008 (KPM) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
44 ORDER ALLOWING THE CLERK OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI THE

11/25/2008 11/25/2008
12/17/2008 12/17/2008 12/17/2008
12/17/2008 12/17/2008

AUTHORITY TO DISMISS ANY PLAINTIFF FROM THIS MDL UPON ENTRY OF AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEIR CONSENT WAS ORIGINALLY FILED. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on November 20, 2008 (dsl) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
Joint Ore Tenus MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit November Report to Magistrate Judge. (KPM) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting Joint Ore Tenus Motion for Extension of Time to Submit November Report to Magistrate Judge. Liaison Counsel has until close of business on Wednesday, 12/3/08, to submit their November report. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on November 25, 2008 (KPM) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
45 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in case 2:07-md-01872KS-MTP; granting (46) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP with prejudice as to plaintiffs Carolyn S. Hogeland and Dorothy Mae Peppers. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/15/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
46 JUDGMENT, defendant's 46 Motion for Summary Judgment as to plaintiffs Carolyn S. Hogeland and Dorothy Mae Peppers is granted and named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/15/08. (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
47 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in case 2:07-md-01872KS-MTP; granting (68) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07-cv-01002-KS-MTP dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs, Annie Bussey, Gloria Cowan, Bettye A. Jackson, Gary F. Washington, Terrar S. Johnson, Annie D. Jones, Rosa L. Murray, Willie James Nelson, Reginald E. Parham, Nathaniel Smart, Earnestine Smith. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/15/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
48 JUDGMENT, 68 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant is granted, dismissing with prejudice named plaintiffs. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/15/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
49 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in case 2:07-md-01872KS-MTP; granting (50) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07-cv-01002-KS-MTP with prejudice as to plaintiffs, Lashondra J. Beason, Ruby Edwards, Andrew Tolbert, Jr. and Kelvin Williams. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/16/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)

12/17/2008 12/17/2008 12/17/2008 12/17/2008
12/17/2008 12/17/2008
12/17/2008
12/17/2008 12/17/2008

50 JUDGMENT, granting 50 Motion for Summary Judgment by defendant as to named plaintiffs, plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/16/08. (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
51 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, in case 2:07-md-01872KS-MTP; granting (42) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07-cv-01006-KS-MTP Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/16/08 (AKL) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
52 JUDGMENT, Plaintiffs listed in order are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Keith Starrett. (AKL) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
53 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in case 2:07-md-01872KS-MTP; granting (59) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07-cv-01002-KS-MTP filed by defendants as plaintiffs are timebarred, the 75 plaintiffs listed in Defendant's motion are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/17/08. (LDR) Modified on 12/17/2008 (LDR). (Entered: 12/17/2008)
54 JUDGMENT, defendant's 59 Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and 75 plaintiffs named in defendant's Motion are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/17/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
55 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in case 2:07-md-01872KS-MTP; granting (43) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP filed by defendants as to time-barred plaintiffs; case dismissed with prejudice as to the seven named plaintiffs. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/17/08 (LDR) Modified on 12/17/2008 (LDR). (Entered: 12/17/2008)
56 JUDGMENT, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to timebarred plaintiffs is granted; named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice: Traci S. Watkins, McKinley T. Jackson, Alethea Payne, Tammy Rene Richey, Mashika R. Robinson, Constance Vinson and Baltazar C. Zamarripa. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/17/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
57 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, in case 2:07-md-01872KS-MTP; granting (31) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07-cv-01008-KS-MTP Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/17/08 (AKL) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
58 JUDGMENT, plaintiffs listed in order are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/15/08 (AKL) (Entered: 12/17/2008)

12/17/2008 12/17/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008

59 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in case 2:07-md-01872KS-MTP; granting (53) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07-cv-01006-KS-MTP Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/17/08 (AKL) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
60 JUDGMENT, listed plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/17/08 (AKL) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
61 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER, in case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP; granting (40) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07-cv01008-KS-MTP Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/18/08 (AKL) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
62 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER in case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP; granting (72) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07-cv01006-KS-MTP Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/17/08 (AKL) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
63 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER in case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP; granting 59 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 2:07-cv01004-KS-MTP, dismissing with prejudice named plaintiff Michael L. Gallagher. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/18/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
64 JUDGMENT, listed plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/18/08 (AKL) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
65 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER: Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 73 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1000 consolidated with 2:07cv1001 granted. Named Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 18, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
66 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER: Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 84 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1002 consolidated with 2:07cv1003 granted. Named Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 18, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
67 JUDGMENT: The Court having granted Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 84 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1002 consolidated with 2:07cv1003, the Plaintiffs named in this Judgment are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 18, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
68 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 44 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1009. Plaintiff Bessie M.

12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/19/2008 12/19/2008 12/19/2008 12/19/2008 12/19/2008 12/19/2008

Collins is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 18, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
69 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 70 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1010 consolidated with 2:07cv1011. Named Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 18, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
70 JUDGMENT, listed plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/18/08 (AKL) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
71 JUDGMENT: The Court having granted Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 70 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1010 consolidated with 2:07cv1011, the Plaintiffs named in this Judgment are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 18, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
72 JUDGMENT: The Court having granted Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 94 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1000 consolidated with 2:07cv1001, the Plaintiffs named in this Judgment are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 18, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
73 JUDGMENT: The Court having granted Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 57 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1009, Plaintiff Bessie M. Collins is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 18, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
74 JUDGMENT, defendant's 59 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, plaintiff Michael L. Gallagher is dismissed. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/18/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
75 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER filed 12/19/2008 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1000 consolidated with 2:07cv1001 granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 78 . Plaintiffs named in the motion are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 19, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
76 JUDGMENT: The Court having granted Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 78 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1000 consolidated with 2:07cv1001, the Plaintiffs named in the motion are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 19, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
77 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 88 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1002 consolidated

12/19/2008 12/19/2008 12/19/2008 12/19/2008
12/19/2008 12/19/2008 12/23/2008 12/23/2008

with 2:07cv1003 is granted and the named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 19, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
78 JUDGMENT: The Court having granted Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 88 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1002 consolidated with 2:07cv1003,the named Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 19, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
79 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER entered in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1010 consolidated with 2:07cv1011 granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 74 : The named Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 19, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
80 JUDGMENT: The Court having granted Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 74 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1010 consolidated with 2:07cv1011, the named Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 19, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
81 JUDGMENT, defendant's 74 Motion for Summary Judgment was granted named case dismissed with prejudice as to: Angelia Barnes, Elizabeth Coleman, Renee Dukes, Andrea G. Ferguson, Cynthia C. Gavin, Fredrick Lawrence, Joshua Alan Loper, Maureen McCullum, Cyrus M. Nicholson, Marsha Page, Carolyn Pierce and Roshay Satcher. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/19/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
82 JUDGMENT, listed plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/19/08 (AKL) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
83 JUDGMENT, defendant's 63 Motion for Summary Judgment granted with prejudice dismissing named plaintiffs: Margaretta M. Hicks, Denise Whiteside, Viekie L. Woods. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/19/08 (LDR) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
84 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 62 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1002 consolidated with 2:07cv1003. Plaintiffs referred to in the Order are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 22, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
85 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 62 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1002 consolidated with Civil Action No. 2:07cv1003, the

12/31/2008 01/05/2009 01/05/2009
01/08/2009 01/08/2009 01/08/2009 01/08/2009 01/08/2009 01/08/2009

Plaintiffs named in this judgment are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 22, 2008 (mbs) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
86 STATUS REPORT (December 2008)(Joint) by R. Pepper Crutcher (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
87 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 36 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1010 consolidated with Civil Action No. 2:07cv1011: The seven named deceased plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 5, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
88 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to Memorandum Opinion and Order entered this date in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1010 consolidated with Civil Action No. 2:07cv1011 granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 36 , the seven named deceased plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 5, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
89 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER granting motion 82 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1000 consolidated with 2:07cv1001: Named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 8, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
90 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to Partial Dismissal Order granting 82 motion in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1000 consolidated with 2:07cv1001, the named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 8, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
91 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER granting motion 91 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1002 consolidated with 2:07cv1003, the named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 8, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
92 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to Partial Dismissal order granting motion 91 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1002 consolidated with 2:07cv1003, the named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 8, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
93 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER granting motion 48 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1009. The named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 8, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
94 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER in case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP; granting (67) Motion for Sanctions in case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP

Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/08/09 (AKL) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009

95 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to Partial Dismissal order granting motion 48 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1009, the named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 8, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009

96 JUDGMENT, the named plaintiffs in order are dismissed with prejudice. Barbara D Baker terminated. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/08/09 (AKL) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009

97 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER granting motion 78 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1010 consolidated with 2:07cv1011. The named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 8, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009

98 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to Partial Dismissal Order granting motion 78 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1010 consolidated with 2:07cv1011, the named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 8, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009

99 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER, plaintiffs listed in order are dismissed with prejudice, in case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP; granting (81) Motion for Sanctions in case 2:07-cv-01006-KS-MTP Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/08/09 (AKL) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009

100 JUDGMENT, plaintiffs listed in order are dismissed with prejudice. Gloria Denise Pointer and Dorian Gaiter Sutherlin terminated. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/08/09 (AKL) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009

101 PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER, listed plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice, in case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP; granting (44) Motion for Sanctions in case 2:07-cv-01008-KS-MTP Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/08/09 (AKL) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009

102 JUDGMENT,listed plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Rosie Kate Foster; Sherry Freeman; Clara Goodwin, I; Terry L. Hall; Tanisha Henry; Priscilla Hickson; Beverly A. Hodo; Brenesha Howard; Charlene Hunter; Monica Hutchinson; Aliette Lacouronne; Kather Jane Lewis; Donald Mahaffey; Juliette McIntosh; Carol Miles; Christie Norman; William L. Pettis; Doris Ringer; Barry Sabb; Willie James Simmons; Zenobia Trammell; Gloria J. Walker; Sierra Walker; Angel E. Williams; Terry L. Williams; Karen K. Wingo; Carolyn M.

Alexander and Daphne Cunningham terminated. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/08/09 (AKL) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/09/2009

103 JUDGMENT, thirty-five plaintiffs listed in exhibit 1 of document #27 are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/9/09 (AKL) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

01/13/2009

104 ORDER in case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP; denying (52) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying (61) Motion to Strike in case 2:07cv-01010-KS-MTP. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 13, 2009 (dsl) (Entered: 01/13/2009)

01/13/2009

105 ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendations and Dimissing Certain Plaintiffs with Prejudice; sustaining 27 Motion for Sanctions. Complaint of plaintiffs Pompeyo Alvarado, Korman Demetris Banks, Lizzie Blackwell and Dessera Warren are dismissed with prejudice. (Civil Action No. 2:07cv1009) Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/13/09 (LDR) (Entered: 01/13/2009)

01/13/2009

106 JUDGMENT, having adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, plaintiffs Pompeyo Alvarado, Korman Demetris Banks, Lizzie Blackwell and Dessera Warren are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/13/09 (LDR) (Entered: 01/13/2009)

01/14/2009

107 BILL OF COSTS by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

01/14/2009

108 MOTION FOR TAXATION OF COSTS AND EXPENSES by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

01/14/2009

109 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1010 consolidated with 2:07cv1011: By agreement of the parties the plaintiffs listed are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 14, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

01/14/2009

110 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 2, Liaison Counsel agreed claims of certain plaintiffs: Jose D. Corrales, James William Cowart, Hilario Dominguez, Joe F. Edwards, Jr., Larry Kelley, Kenneth Swearengin, Michael L. White and William A. Worden (maintenance and sanitation workers) are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/14/09 (LDR) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

01/14/2009

111 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 2, Liaison Counsel agreed claims of certain plaintiffs (maintenance and sanitation workers): Akings, Amos, Anderson, James E., Austin, Brenda F., Austin, Terry M., Baker, Charles D., Baker, Quincy T., Baldwin, Jerry Tirone, Baxter, Willie R., Bolar, Calvin J., Bronson, Arlene, Chambliss, Douglas James, Cobb, Derek, Cooks, Michael A., Daniel, Eric S., Ellis, Ivory D., Foster, Robert, Fowler, Johnny, Foxx, Rozil, Henderson, Lavonda D., Hurt, Kelvin, Johnson, Arthur J., Johnson, Rosario C., Johnson, Spencer, Jr., Lee, Lemon, Lee, Robert J., Martin, James, Monday, Donnie Derell, Murray, O.C., ONeal, Oscar Lee, Parham, Reginald E., Parker, Darnell, Phillips, Felix B., Prewitt, Jimmie, Pritchett, Antony D., Pritchett, Kamondra, Rodgers, John R., Rogers, Leroy, Rogers, Sharon, Scott, Cametria, Simmons, Statie M., Smith, Herman M., Stanley, Carlos C., Still, Angela Marie, Tarver, Sabrena M., Thompkins, Terrance, Townsend, Chester L., Townsend, Stanley J., Walker, Sequella, andWilliams, Clifton C. are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/14/09 (LDR) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

01/15/2009

112 ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS WITH PREJUDICE: In Civil Action No. 2:07cv1000 consolidated with 2:07cv1001, the Court adopts Report and Recommendation 69 and grants Second Motion for Sanctions 53 . The Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit 1 are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 14, 2009 (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit 1)(mbs) (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/15/2009

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #111, incorrect Civil Action Numbers were listed on pleading as 2:07cv1003-KS-MTP consolidated with 2:07cv1011-KS-MTP. Clerk has refiled Order in correct lead case of Civil Action No. of 2:07cv1002-KS-MTP. (LDR) (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/15/2009

113 ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN PAINTIFFS WITH PREJUDICE: In Civil Action No. 2:07cv1002 consolidated with 2:07cv1003, the Court has adopted 80 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge and granted 55 Second Motion for Sanctions. The Plaintiffs named in Exhibit 1 are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 15, 2009 (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit 1)(mbs) (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/16/2009

114 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 55 in 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP Report and Recommendations, re: 39 in 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP, Second Motion for Sanctions; the

claims of 13 plaintiffs listed in Exhibit 1 are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/16/09 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(LDR) (Entered: 01/16/2009)

01/22/2009

115 ORDER setting dates certain re 108 MOTION FOR TAXATION OF COSTS AND EXPENSES filed by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation. Respondents' reply is due on or before January 29, 2009; movant's rebuttal, if any, is due on or before February 5, 2009. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/22/09 (scp) (Entered: 01/22/2009)

01/28/2009

116 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER: By agreement, 80 Motion to Dismiss (Security Claims) in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1000 consolidated with 2:07cv1001 is granted. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 28, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/28/2009)

01/28/2009

117 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER, claims for overtime spent walking to and from security and for time spent cleaning is dismissed entirely. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/28/09 (AKL) (Entered: 01/28/2009)

01/28/2009

118 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER: By agreement, 86 Motion to Dismiss (Security Claims) in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1002 consolidated with Civil Action No. 2:07cv1003 is granted. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 28, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/28/2009)

01/28/2009

119 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER: By agreement, 46 Motion to Dismiss (Security Claims) in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1009 is granted. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 28, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/28/2009)

01/28/2009

120 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER, claims for overtime spent walking to and from security and for time spent cleaning is dismissed entirely. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/28/09 (AKL) (Entered: 01/28/2009)

01/28/2009

121 AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER in case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP; granting (65) Motion to Dismiss in case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP as to plaintiffs' claim for overtime under FLSA relating to clearing security. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/28/09 (LDR) (Entered: 01/28/2009)

01/29/2009

122 RESPONSE to Motion re 108 MOTION FOR TAXATION OF COSTS AND EXPENSES filed by William S. Hommel, Jr (Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 01/29/2009)

01/30/2009

123 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated, motion for partial summary judgment 60 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1000 consolidated with 2:07cv1001 is granted and the nine named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 30, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009

124 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to Memorandum Opinion and Order granting motion for partial summary judgment 60 entered this date in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1000 consolidated with 2:07cv1001, the following plaintiffs are dimissed with prejudice: Rosa A. Aguilar, Patsy A. Doggrell, Janet Barefoot, Johnnie Pearl Hall, Cornlia Michell Henderson, Geraldine Newman, Mary Ann Scott, Jennifer N. Sewell and Melissa L. Vaughn. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 30, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009

125 MEMORANDUM ORDER: For the reasons stated, the Court has granted motion for sanctions and to strike 95 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv1010 consolidated with 2:07cv1011, and the 70 named plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 30, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009

126 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to Memorandum Order 108 entered this date in Civil Action 2:07cv1010 consolidated with 2:07cv1011, the motion for sanctions and to strike 95 was granted and the 70 plaintiffs named in the Memorandum Order are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on January 30, 2009 (mbs) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

02/03/2009

127 ORDER granting (108) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07-md-01872-KS-MTP; granting (107) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07-cv-01000-KS-MTP; granting (122) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07-cv-01002-KS-MTP; granting (86) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses and (92) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07-cv-01004-KS-MTP; granting (108) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses and (115)Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07-cv-01006KS-MTP; granting (104) Motion Taxation of Costs and Expenses in case 2:07-cv-01010-KS-MTP. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 2/3/09 (LDR) (Entered: 02/03/2009)

02/13/2009

128 BILL OF COSTS (FIRST AMENDED) by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 02/13/2009)

02/13/2009 129 Amended MOTION FOR TAXATION OF COSTS AND EXPENSES by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 02/13/2009)

02/23/2009

130 ORDER, setting response/reply deadline as to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed at #118 in 2:07cv1000; #135 in 2:07cv1002; #125 in 2:07cv1006; #55 in 2:07cv1008 and #118 in 2:07cv1010. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 2/23/09 (LDR) (Entered: 02/23/2009)

02/25/2009

131 ORDER setting response/reply deadline re (#58 in 2:07-cv-01008-KSMTP) MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Consent Invalidity) filed by Wayne Farms, LLC, and (#121 in 2:07-cv-01010KS-MTP) MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Consent Invalidity) filed by Wayne Farms, L.L.C. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 2/25/09 (LDR) (Entered: 02/25/2009)

03/05/2009

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #129: Attorney's office was contacted regarding identifying each group of plaintiffs by the civil action numbers assigned in this Court as well as the the civil action number assigned in the individual district courts. (LDR) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

03/05/2009

132 ATTACHMENT re 128 Bill of Costs, 129 Amended MOTION FOR TAXATION OF COSTS AND EXPENSES Supplement to First Amended Bill of Costs by E. Russell Turner (Turner, Ernest) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

04/08/2009 133 Costs Taxed in amount of $ 1,629.35 against certain plaintiffs. (LDR) (Entered: 04/08/2009)

04/09/2009

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/9/2009. The parties announced that they have reached a settlement and will be filing a motion for approval of same. PARTICIPANTS: Bill Hommel for Plaintiffs; Pepper Crutcher for Defendant. (KPM) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

04/09/2009

TEXT ONLY ORDER: The parties having announced a settlement in this matter, the court hereby directs the parties to submit a motion to approve the settlement within 10 days. All other case deadlines including any deadlines for responses to pending motions are suspended pending further order. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on April 9, 2009 (KPM) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

04/23/2009

134 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval by Anne Harlan Latino (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit A to Settlement Agreement - List of Plaintiffs, # 3 Exhibit B to Settlement

Agreement - Notices and Consent Forms, # 4 Exhibit C to Settlement Agreement - Final Judgment)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 04/23/2009)

04/23/2009

135 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 134 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval filed by Anne Harlan Latino (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 04/23/2009)

06/04/2009

136 ORDER SETTING HEARING ON 134 JOINT MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL, Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 6/3/09 (LDR) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/16/2009

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Keith Starrett: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/16/2009. A hearing on the 134

Joint Motion for Settlement Approval has been set for Wednesday, July 29, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. Said hearing will be held in Courtroom 1, Colmer Federal Courthouse, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, before U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett. Participating in the telephone conference on behalf of the Plaintiffs was William S. Hommel; participating on behalf of the Defendant was R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. (dsl) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

07/24/2009

137 MOTION for Attorney Fees Motion for Approval of Plaintiffs' Counsels' Fee Application by William S. Hommel, Jr (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A-1, # 3 Exhibit A-2, # 4 Exhibit A-3 (1), # 5 Exhibit A-3 (2), # 6 Exhibit A-3 (3), # 7 Exhibit A-4, # 8 Exhibit A5, # 9 Exhibit A-6, # 10 Exhibit A-7, # 11 Exhibit A-8 (1), # 12 Exhibit A-8 (2), # 13 Exhibit A-8 (3), # 14 Exhibit A-8 (4), # 15 Exhibit A-8 (5), # 16 Exhibit A-8 (6), # 17 Exhibit A-9)(Hommel - PHV, William) Modified on 7/27/2009 (mbs). (Entered: 07/24/2009)

07/29/2009

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Keith Starrett:

Motion Hearing held on 7/29/2009 re 134 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval filed by Anne Harlan Latino and 137 MOTION for Attorney Fees Motion for Approval of Plaintiffs' Counsels' Fee Application filed by William S. Hommel, Jr. After hearing argument of counsel, the Court took both motions under advisement. Additionally, the Court extended the opt-in period for sixty days, making October 1, 2009, the cut off date. Present and participating on behalf of the Plaintiffs were William S. Hommel, Jr., Seth M. Hunter and Roman Ashley Shaul; present and participating on behalf of the Defendant was R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. and Anne Harlan Latino. (Court Reporter Margaret Wasmund 601-583-4383) (dsl) (Entered: 07/29/2009)

08/17/2009

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Keith Starrett: Telephone Conference held on 8/17/2009 at the request of the Court re proposed settlement agreement. Participating on behalf of Plaintiffs was William Hommel; participating on behalf of the Defendant was R. Pepper Crutcher. (dsl) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

08/17/2009

138 ORDER granting 134 Joint Motion for Settlement Approval. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 8/17/09 (LDR) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

10/23/2009

139 NOTICE Of Filing Additional Consents by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15)(Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 10/23/2009)

10/26/2009

140 AMENDED DOCUMENT by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation. Amendment to 139 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Notice of Filing Additional Consents (Corrected Notice Only) (Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/30/2009

141 NOTICE Of Filing Additional Consents by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

12/14/2009

TEXT ONLY ORDER Setting Telephone Conference Call for Wednesday, December 16, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. Central Standard Time. Participating in the conference call with the Court will be William Hommel, Pepper Crutcher, and Seth Hunter. The Court shall initiate the call. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 14, 2009 (dsl) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/18/2009

142 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion for Approval of Attorneys Fees by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Hommel - PHV, William) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

12/23/2009

143 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 137 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiffs' counsel should be granted a fee from the settlement corpus in the amount of $800,000.00, which is to be divided according to their private fee sharing agreement. Further, Plaintiffs' counsel should be reimbursed the sum of $75,000.00 in costs from the settlement corpus, and the balance of the $500,000.00 shall be divided among the remaining 2,059 Plaintiffs according to the formula

established by the settlement documents. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 23, 2009. (dsl) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

03/31/2010

144 JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL, all individual cases consolidated into this MDL have been fully resolved by the entry of the Order Approving Settlement; the Master Case and consolidated cases are hereby dismissed. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 3/30/10 (LDR) (Entered: 03/31/2010)

05/27/2010

145 MOTION to Reopen Case by In re Wayne Farms LLC Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hommel PHV, William) (Entered: 05/27/2010)

06/08/2010 146 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT by R. Pepper Crutcher re 145 MOTION to Reopen Case (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 06/08/2010)

06/10/2010

147 ORDER granting 145 Motion to Reopen Case; the agreed payment list shall be filed under seal and remain under seal for the period of one year. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 6/10/10. (LDR) (Entered: 06/10/2010)

06/11/2010

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to Doc. 146 : The Notice of Endorsement has been scanned twice and filed as one document. Attorney is advised to check pdf document for accuracy before attaching it to the docket entry. (mbs) (Entered: 06/11/2010)

08/30/2010

148 Joint MOTION for Judgment Based on ADR Settlement by Anne Harlan Latino (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (under seal), # 2 Exhibit 2 Final Judgment)(Latino, Anne) (Entered: 08/30/2010)

08/30/2010

149 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 148 Joint MOTION for Judgment Based on ADR Settlement filed by Anne Harlan Latino (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 08/30/2010)

08/30/2010

150 NOTICE of Conventional Filing of Agreed Payment List Under Seal by Anne Harlan Latino re 148 Joint MOTION for Judgment Based on ADR Settlement (Latino, Anne) (Entered: 08/30/2010)

08/31/2010

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #148, #149, #150: Attorney is directed to file a certificate as CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE and link it to the proper documents. A certificate of service must be attached to a document [Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing, Sec. 4.A.1, Sec. 4.B, and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 5(d)(1)]. DOCKET ANNOTATION AS TO INCOMPLETE IDENTIFICATION OF ATTORNEY FILERS doc #148, #149, #150: L.U.Civ.R. Rule 11.(a) states that all filed, signed documents must contain counsels name, address, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and counsels

bar membership identification number. Attorney is advised to comply with this requirement in future filings. DOCKET ANNOTATION AS TO PROPOSED JUDGMENT doc #148: Proposed orders/judgments are not to be electronically filed as a separate pleading or as an attachment to a pleading, but instead are to be provided to chambers by e-mail (Courts Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Sec.5.B.). Attorney is advised to follow this procedure in future filings. DOCKET ANNOTATION AS TO NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING as to doc #149: Notice of Conventional filing should not be filed by counsel, but should be brought or mailed to the Clerks office for filing along with the subject document(s). (LDR) (Entered: 08/31/2010)

08/31/2010

151 Sealed Document - Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement RE: 148 Joint MOTION for Judgment Based on ADR Settlement.(LDR) (Entered: 08/31/2010)

09/01/2010

152 FINAL JUDGMENT, the parties' Joint Motion for Settlement Approval is granted; final judgment entered in favor of the listed plaintiffs against defendant Wayne Farm LLC. All other pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 8/30/10. (LDR) (Entered: 09/01/2010)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:

01/22/2021 13:17:31

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

19

Cost:

Leake
2:07-md01872-KSMTP
1.90