Opinion ID: 2982668
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Smith’s First Amended Complaint

Text: The district court granted ServiceMaster’s motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Louisiana on July 1, 2010.2 However, on October 11, 2011, Smith filed an unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint and to transfer the action back to the Western District of Tennessee. In the motion, Smith sought to add two named plaintiffs, Dominick Massaro (Massaro) and Troy Yates (Yates), to replace Smith as the collective action representatives. Massaro worked as a service representative for Terminix in Palm Beach, Florida, from the time 2 Because Smith worked for ServiceMaster in Louisiana, Terminix claimed that it would be prejudiced if forced to defend the action in Tennessee. Smith objected, but the district court agreed with ServiceMaster. 2 Smith et al. v. ServiceMaster Holding Corp., et al., No. 14-5481 his former employer, ServicePro, was bought by Terminix, until August 2010. Yates worked as a service representative for Terminix in Glenview, Illinois, from 2007 to 2009. Both Massaro and Yates claimed they were improperly classified as exempt employees and thus not paid overtime wages. The amended complaint also included allegations that ServiceMaster failed to provide employees with meal breaks in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 (Claim II). The district court granted the motion to amend and transfer on October 19, 2011. In addition, William Craig (Craig) and Billy Simpkins (Simpkins) filed motion-to-join forms on April 8, 2010, and February 9, 2012, respectively. Although Smith’s counsel spent many hours preparing a motion for collective action certification, it was never submitted; thus, the district court never certified this matter as a collective action.