Alfonso v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc
| Connecticut District Court | |
| Judge: | Sarala V Nagala |
| Case #: | 3:21-cv-01644 |
| Nature of Suit | 790 Labor - Other Labor Litigation |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
| Case Filed: | Dec 10, 2021 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Jun 08, 2022 4:34 AM EDT |
|
Defendant
FedEx Ground Package System Inc
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Suzanne Alfonso
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Joshua Adkins
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Robert Duquette
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Steven Slater
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Sep 29 2022
ORDER granting 39 Plaintiffs' Motion nunc pro tunc to Modify the Scheduling Order; granting 35 Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint; denying 23 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's Fourteenth Affirmative Defense, for the reasons set forth in the attached Ruling. The Clerk is directed to separately docket the First Amended Complaint, ECF No. [35-2]. The Court will discuss the schedule and other needs of the case at the upcoming status conference. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 9/29/2022. (Rennie, Carolyn) |
|
|
GPO
Mar 08 2024
ORDER. For the reasons described in the attached Ruling, Plaintiffs' motion to preclude, ECF No. 65, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, without prejudice to renewal, and Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class, ECF No. 72, is GRANTED, with a minor modification to the class definition. Accordingly, notice will be provided to putative class members, who will have the opportunity to opt out of the lawsuit if they choose to do so. In order to facilitate notice to the class, Defendant is ordered to produce a list of class members including their names, last known address, emails, and telephone numbers to Plaintiffs' counsel by March 29, 2024. Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to mail the approved notice to the class members within 21 days of receiving the updated class list from Defendant. The notice should include a date 30 days after the date of mailing to allow putative class members to opt out of the class. Lastly, in accordance with the schedule previously proposed by the parties and adopted by the Court, any dispositive motions shall be submitted by June 10, 2024. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/8/2024. (Hagemann, E) |
| Docket last updated: 05/06/2025 11:59 PM EDT |
| Thursday, March 27, 2025 | ||
| 116 | 116
order
Order Staying Case
Thu 03/27 6:10 PM
ORDER STAYING CASE. The Court sua sponte stays this case pending a decision by the Second Circuit in Del Rio v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc. , No. 23-1337 "[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its own docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co. , 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936), accord Clinton v. Jones , 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) ("The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket."). "A court may properly exercise this power when a higher court is close to settling an important issue of law bearing on the action." Spano v. V & J Nat'l Enters., LLC , 264 F. Supp. 3d 440, 460-61 (W.D.N.Y 2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g. , Marshel v. AFW Fabric Corp. , 552 F.2d 471, 472 (2d Cir. 1977) ( per curiam ) ; Kelly v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. , No. 3:16-cv-00543 (VLB), 2017 WL 4856867, at *2 (D. Conn. Aug. 23, 2017) ("Courts have discretion to stay proceedings when a higher court will rule on an applicable issue of law."). Central to any decision on the cross-motions for summary judgment pending before this Court is the proper interpretation of Connecticut wage laws and regulations governing hours worked. More specifically, this Court must determine whether the time class members spend going through required security screenings and walking to time clocks at their places of employment is compensable under Connecticut state laws and regulations. In Del Rio , the Second Circuit is considering whether time spent in mandatory security screenings is compensable under Connecticut law. Rather than deciding the question on its own, the Second Circuit has opted to certify certain questions related to this issue to the Connecticut Supreme Court. In its certification order, the Second Circuit has acknowledged that its decision in that case will have "far-reaching implications," including on the present case. See Del Rio , __ F.4th __, 2025 WL 826426, at *6 (2d Cir. Mar. 17, 2025). At the oral argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment in the present case, the Court raised with the parties the possibility of staying this case pending a decision in Del Rio . While Defendant ultimately deferred to the Court as to whether a stay was appropriate, Plaintiffs objected to a stay. See ECF No.111 at 3-4, 24-25. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that a stay of this litigation is appropriate because the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision on the certified questions (assuming it answers them) and any resulting Second Circuit decision will directly bear on whether time spent in required security screenings is compensable under Connecticut law. The Court recognizes that Plaintiffs' walking time claim may not directly be addressed in Del Rio . It nonetheless believes that considerations of judicial efficiency favor a stay, as the appellate courts' rulings will guide this Court in analyzing the relevant Connecticut statutes and regulations at issue here. Indeed, a case in this District involving walking time is also stayed pending the decision in Del Rio , see Johnson v. Walgreen E. Co., Inc. , No. 23-cv-743 (JCH), 2024 WL 4023891, at *4 (D. Conn. Sept. 3, 2024), and the Second Circuit acknowledged the stay in that case in its certification order in Del Rio . See Del Rio , 2025 WL 826426, at *6. Although a stay will cause delay, it is the appropriate course here, given how closely related the issues in this case are to those pending in Del Rio . Therefore, the Court sua sponte orders that proceedings in this matter are stayed pending the Second Circuit's decision in Del Rio . The parties must notify the Court within seven days of the Connecticut Supreme Court issuing a decision on the certified questions, and within seven days of the Second Circuit issuing a decision in Del Rio . Following these decisions, the Court may request supplemental briefing before it issues a ruling on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties remain free to pursue settlement while the case is stayed. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/27/2025. (Webb, E) |
|