Opinion ID: 3011219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court Complied With

Text: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 A threshold issue is whether the District Court complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in deciding RHD's summary judgment motion. The District Court concluded plaintiffs are not employees exempted from FLSA coverage by the companion exemption, so RHD's overtime payment must comply with FLSA's rules. Madison, Civ. No. 977402, slip op. at 18. RHD asserts the decision constituted a sua sponte summary judgment in Madison's favor , without the notice required by Rule 56. 7 RHD is correct that a district court may not grant summary judgment sua sponte unless the court gives notice and an opportunity to oppose summary judgment. Otis Elevator Co. v. George Washington Hotel Corp., 27 F.3d 903, 910 (3d Cir. 1994). But that did not happen here. Faced with RHD's motion for summary judgment, the District Court decided whether RHD was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under 29 U.S.C. S 213(a)(15). In addressing the motion, the court found no dispute of material fact with respect to whether FLSA and its companionship exemption applied (a conclusion neither party contests), and concluded as a matter of law RHD was not entitled to judgment under that provision. In rejecting RHD's asserted affirmative defense, the District Court held RHD could not, as a matter of law, meet its bur den of proof. See Madison, Civ. No. 97-7402, slip op. at 4. Holding RHD could not prevail as a matter of law, on what RHD apparently considered one of its strongest affirmative defenses, does not mean the court improperly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. The District Court's judgment left intact RHD's other affir mative defenses (statute of limitations, laches, waiver , estoppel, _________________________________________________________________ 7. Defendant argues the same with r espect to the District Court's conclusion that RHD's Fairshare Plan was not exempted from the regular pay rate calculation under 29 U.S.C. S 207(e)(4). Given our disposition of that issue, we need not address RHD's summary judgment argument with respect to S 207(e)(4). See discussion infra. 7 good faith) that RHD was free to pursue. Indeed, the court did not enter judgment for plaintiffs until nine months after denying in part RHD's summary judgment motion. RHD appealed only after the parties stipulated to damages and prospective relief, and settled other claims. We see no violation of Rule 56.