IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

MARY MASON, et al.,

On behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:17-cv-314
V JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
SYNCHRONY BANK
Defendant.

ENTRY SUSTAINING DEFENDANT SYNCHRONY BANK’S MOTION
FOR POSTPONEMENT OF BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION (DOC. #16), AND STAYING BRIEFING
ON MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION, EXPEDITED OPT-
IN DISCOVERY, AND COURT-SUPERVISED NOTICE TO POTENTIAL
OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS OF PLAINTIFFS MARY MASON, YAHAIRA DIAZ-
REYES AND KARETTA PARTRIDGE (DOC. #15), UNTIL THE COURT
ISSUES A RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND TO DISMISS, OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO STAY THE
PROCEEDINGS (DOC. #18), NO LATER THAN WEDNESDAY,
JANUARY 31, 2018; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CLAIMS UNDER
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 IS TOLLED FROM
DECEMBER 18, 2017, UNTIL 5:00 P.M. EST ON WEDNESDAY
FEBRUARY 7, 2018; TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR
5:00 P.M. EST ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2018

Plaintiffs Mary Mason, Yahaira Diaz-Reyes and Karetta Partridge, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed a Motion for
Conditional Certification, Expedited Opt-In Discovery, and Court-Supervised Notice to

Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs (“Motion for Conditional Certification”), by which Plaintiffs


moved that the instant case be certified as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), and that this Court implement a procedure “whereby
prospective opt-in plaintiffs will be notified of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims and given an
opportunity to join this action as party plaintiffs.” Doc. #15, PAGEID #67 (citing 29
U.S.C. § 216(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), 83(b)). On November 8, 2017, Defendant
Synchrony Bank (“Defendant”) filed a Motion for Postponement of Briefing on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Conditional Certification (“Motion for Postponement”), arguing that Plaintiffs’
motion was rendered moot by its forthcoming (now fully-briefed) Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to Dismiss, or Alternatively, to Stay the Proceedings (“Motion to Compel
Arbitration”). Doc. #16, PAGEID #120-21; Doc. #18. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs
and any future opt-in Plaintiffs are required to arbitrate individually “all FLSA . . . claims
in this case based on Defendant's alternative dispute resolution program and the
class/collective action waiver therein.” /d., PAGEID #121.

On December 15, 2017, the Court ruled that the question of whether the
arbitration requirements to which Plaintiffs were supposedly subject preclude them from
pursuing a collective action in this Court is a threshold jurisdictional issue, which this
Court must adjudicate before ruling on the Motion for Conditional Certification. On
December 18, 2017, Defendant and Plaintiffs entered into an agreement by which the
FLSA statute of limitations, 29 U.S.C. § 255, would be tolled from December 18, 2017,
until Wednesday, February 7, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. EST.

In light of the above, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant's Motion for
Postponement. Doc. #16. Briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification,

Doc. #15, is STAYED until the Court issues a decision on Defendant’s Motion to


Compel Arbitration, Doc. #18, no later than January 31, 2018. The statute of limitations
for all potential FLSA claimants is STAYED until Wednesday, February 7, 2018, at 5:00
p.m. EST. The Court will conduct a telephonic status conference with counsel for

Plaintiffs and Defendant on Wednesday, January 31, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. EST.

Date: January 2, 2018 LIork,

WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE