Clark et al v. Capital Vision Services, LLC
| Pennsylvania Middle District Court | |
| Judge: | Keli M Neary |
| Case #: | 1:25-cv-00769 |
| Nature of Suit | 710 Labor - Fair Labor Standards Act |
| Cause | 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act |
| Case Filed: | May 02, 2025 |
| Case in other court: | Massachusetts, 1:22-cv-10236 |
| Last checked: Friday May 02, 2025 2:12 PM EDT |
|
Defendant
Capital Vision Services, LLC
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Kevin Nelson
on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarily situated 408 Susquehanna Ave.
West Pittston, PA 18643 |
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 05/06/2025 11:59 PM EDT |
| Tuesday, May 06, 2025 | ||
| 255 | 255
2
pgs
order
Order ~Util - Set Hearings
Tue 05/06 4:35 PM
ORDER - 1. No later than 6/11/25, the parties shall file a joint status report. 2. A status conference to be conducted over Zoom is scheduled for 6/18/25, at 11:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The Court will send joining information for the Zoom hearing at a later date. See order for details. Signed by Honorable Keli M. Neary on 5/6/25. (ma) |
|
| 254 | 254
notice
Attorney Appearance - Entry of Appearance
Tue 05/06 4:20 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Jacob FM Oslick on behalf of Capital Vision Services, LLC (Oslick, Jacob) |
|
|
misc
Docket Annotation
Tue 05/06 4:44 PM
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Attorneys Sam Smith, Loren Donnell, Brant Casavant, Alan Quiles and Hillary Schwab can find information regarding either general or special admission at https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/forms/petition-admission-practice. (ma) |
||
| Friday, May 02, 2025 | ||
| 253 | 253
transfer
Case Transferred In - District Transfer
Fri 05/02 1:54 PM
Case transferred electronically in from District of Massachusetts; Case Number 1:22-cv-10236 containing electronic documents. |
|
| Wednesday, April 30, 2025 | ||
| 252 | 252 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing. Initial Pretrial Conference set for 6/12/2025 11:30 AM in Courtroom 11 (In person only) before Judge Denise J. Casper. The parties shall confer regarding the topics identified under Local Rule 16.5(d) and shall prepare and submit a joint pretrial memorandum in accordance with Local Rule 16.5(d) no later than five (5) business days prior to the pretrial conference. The pretrial memorandum shall also propose deadlines for the filing of motions in limine, proposed jury instructions, proposed voir dire and a proposed trial date.(LMH) [Transferred from Massachusetts on 5/2/2025.] | |
| Tuesday, April 29, 2025 | ||
| 251 | 251 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re247 Memorandum in Opposition. In Plaintiffs' opposition, Plaintiffs seek, in light of the Court's decertification ruling, D.241 , a stay of the claims of the opt-out Plaintiffs or, alternatively, a tolling of their claims for 180 days. As another session of this Court recognized, the decertification decision had the effect of dismissing the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs. See DaRosa v. Speedway , 19-10791 RGS, D. 133 (Sept. 9, 2021). Unlike a Rule 23 class action, "the named plaintiffs in an FLSA collective action do not represent anyone other than themselves. Accordingly, the named plaintiffs have no authority to move to equitably toll the claims of the potential opt-in plaintiffs." Id . (quoting Atkinson v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc. , 2015 WL 853234, at 88 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2015)). Moreover, if any of the opt-in plaintiffs need to seek equitable tolling, they may do so in the court in which they file their respective actions. Id . For at least these reasons, the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs' request for stay or equitable tolling. (SEC) [Transferred from Massachusetts on 5/2/2025.] | |
| 250 | 250 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re245 Motion to Sever. After considering Defendant's motion to sever and transfer, D. 245-46, and Plaintiffs' opposition to same, D.247 , and the parties' respective reply briefs, D.248 ,249 , the Court ALLOWS the motion to the following extent. Now that this Court has decertified the FLSA collective, D.241 , the Court must evaluate whether it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant as to the several Named Plaintiffs' claims as it otherwise would do in a non-collective case brought by several plaintiffs. See, e.g., Access Now, Inc. v. Sportswear, Inc. , 298 F. Supp. 3d 296, 301-03 (D. Mass. 2018). The First Circuit's decision in Waters v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc. , 23 F.th 84, 92 (1st Cir. 2022) does not warrant a different outcome where it did not concern the personal jurisdiction over a defendant as to plaintiffs claims where the FLSA collective has been decertified and there has been no showing of personal jurisdiction over Defendant that comports with the Massachusetts long arm statute or constitutional minimum contacts. Accordingly, the Court will transfer the claims of the Named Plaintiffs Mr. Perez, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Roscher who did not work for Defendant in MA to the federal district courts in which they each worked for Defendant. Accordingly, the trial in this case will be as to Named Plaintiffs Ms. Clark and Mr. Coulter. To the extent that Defendant was seeking to sever the trials involving Ms. Clark and Mr. Coulter, the Court DENIES that portion of the motion. (SEC) [Transferred from Massachusetts on 5/2/2025.] | |