Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_08-cv-01239/USCOURTS-alnd-1_08-cv-01239-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

CEDRIC D. BURROUGHS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HONDA MANUFACTURING OF

ALABAMA, LLC,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:08-CV-1239-VEH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

This lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). (Doc. 1). On

June 29, 2011, the court entered an order (Doc. 122) granting in part and denying in

part Defendant Honda Manufacturing ofAlabama, LLC’s (“HMA”) Motion to Compel

Responses to Discovery and Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Who Fail to Respond (Doc.

117) filed on June 16, 2011. (See Doc. 122 at 1 ¶ 1(“For good cause shown, the court

GRANTS the Motion To Compel and ORDERS all the Plaintiffs listed in Paragraph

4 of Defendant’s motion . . . .”)); (id. at 2 ¶ 2 (“The court DENIES as premature the

Motion insofar as it asks the court to dismiss the claims of those Plaintiffs who fail to

respond, without prejudice to re-filing at a later date if the Defendant can demonstrate

FILED

 2011 Oct-07 PM 03:23

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:08-cv-01239-VEH Document 167 Filed 10/07/11 Page 1 of 6
a clear record of delay and ‘willful contempt.’” (quoting Gratton v. Great Am.

Comm’cns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999))). 

This matteris now before the court on HMA’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Who

Failed to Comply with Court Order (the “Motion”) (Doc. 123), filed on July 20, 2011.

On July 21, 2011, the court entered a show cause order (Doc. 126) on the Motion.

Plaintiffs filed their response (Doc. 127) on July 27, 2011.

II. Analysis

Pursuant to Rules 37 and 41 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Motion

seeks to have this court “dismiss with prejudice the claims of those plaintiffs who

failed to respond to HMA’s First Interrogatories and Request for Production of

Documents after being compelled by the Court [to do so].” (Doc. 123 ¶ 7). These

fifty-five plaintiffs consist of two groups: those who failed to provide any discovery

responses at all, as well as those who failed to provide signed responses to the

interrogatories by July 15, 2011:

Group One

1. Vernon DeWayne Allredge

2. Angela Blair

3. Danny Joe Bonds

4. Jason Boswell

5. Marvis Brown

6. Jonathan Butler

7. Rachael Butler

2

Case 1:08-cv-01239-VEH Document 167 Filed 10/07/11 Page 2 of 6
8. Tim Butts

9. Sarah Byrd

10. Robert Craft

11. Sherry Cromer

12. John Crowe

13. Marcus Forman

14. Henry Glover

15. Sherman Gray

16. Harman Hardy

17. Scott Houston

18. Larry Jenkins

19. Devoris Johnson

20. Randy Langley

21. Darryl Lewis

22. Cecil Monroe

23. Jimmy Olds

24. Randall Payne

25. Tonya Roberson

26. Angela Rogers

27. Rutelia Rowe

28. David Sertes

29. Renauld Smith

30. Jamie Stevenson

31. Christopher Thomas

32. Yolanda Turner

33. Lekia Wallace

34. James Warren

35. Wesley Woods

36. Darrien Wright

37. Katrina Wright

38. Ricky Yeardon

Group Two

39. Robert Ashley

40. Charlotte Avery

41. George Beason

3

Case 1:08-cv-01239-VEH Document 167 Filed 10/07/11 Page 3 of 6
42. Linda Bridges-Young

43. Maureen Byars

44. Stephanie Calhoun

45. Maggie Daniels

46. Vicki Jolynn Davis

47. Roland Lamar Falkner

48. Aretha Marbury

49. Charles McKay

50. Marion Mickler

51. Kathy Mitchell

52. John Nix

53. Jonathan Patterson

54. Willie Ann Wilson

55. Richard Wingo

(Doc. 123 ¶ 4.a - 4.b).

Plaintiffs do not dispute the non-compliance ofthis collection of opt-in plaintiffs.

Instead, they explain their efforts to reach all opt-in plaintiffs in an attempt to meet the

July 15, 2011, deadline and then suggest that the court “is not required to dismiss the

non-responsive opt-in plaintiffs because of their passive status and [that] it is not a

sound exercise of discretion to do so.” (Doc. 127 at 2).

“Dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate where there is a clear record of

‘willful’ contempt and an implicit or explicit finding that lesser sanctions would not

suffice.” See Gratton, 178 F.3d at 1374 (emphasis added). Neither side has referred

this court to any on-point (i.e., addressing the issue of FLSA opt-in plaintiffs with

overdue discovery obligations and an outstanding order compelling responses thereto)

4

Case 1:08-cv-01239-VEH Document 167 Filed 10/07/11 Page 4 of 6
controlling case authority. The court is similarly unaware of any such binding

precedent. 

Having studied all arguments presented by the parties and weighing the

competing interests, the court, in its discretion, concludes that a dismissal ofthese fiftyfive opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice is the appropriate measure for it to take. (See

Doc. 127 at 19 (“If there is any dismissal of some or all of the opt-ins targeted by

Defendant, the dismissals should be without prejudice.”)); see also Briggins v. Honda

Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC, No. 1:08-CV-1861-KOB, (Doc. 103 ¶ 1 at 2) (N.D.

Ala. Sept. 2, 2011) (“The thirty-one opt-in plaintiffs, listed immediately below, are

hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with discovery

orders under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(b) and for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ.

Pro. 41(b)[.]”).

1

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, HMA’s Motion is GRANTED as modified herein, and the claims

ofthe fifty-five opt-in plaintiffs listed above are HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT

In Briggins, HMA similarly sought to dismiss non-compliant opt-in plaintiffs

1

with prejudice. See id. (Doc. 91 at 6) (N.D. Ala. July 29, 2011) (“HMA requests that

the Court dismiss with prejudice the claims of those plaintiffs who failed to respond to

HMA’s First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents after being

compelled by the Court.”).

5

Case 1:08-cv-01239-VEH Document 167 Filed 10/07/11 Page 5 of 6
PREJUDICE due to their failure to timely respond to outstanding discovery as

previously ordered by the court and/or to otherwise properly prosecute their case.

DONE and ORDERED this the 7th day of October, 2011.

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

6

Case 1:08-cv-01239-VEH Document 167 Filed 10/07/11 Page 6 of 6