Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ncmd;;1:16-cv-01414_de17> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01414_de17 RegisterActionDate "2017-03-15" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01414_de17 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to 1 Complaint by 04/17/2017. Plaintiff opposed an extension of Defendant's answer deadline on the ground that the statute of limitations as to Plaintiff's proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective action claim continues to run as to any putative, opt-in plaintiffs and Defendant has not entered a tolling agreement. Plaintiff is correct that "the statute of limitations continues to run on each plaintiff's claims until [each] personally file[s] [an] opt-in consent form." Fenley v. Wood Grp. Mustang, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 1063, 1076 (S.D. Ohio 2016) (citing 29 U.S.C. s 256(b)). In addition, however, "[i]t was clearly within Congress' contemplation that some time would lapse between the commencement of collective actions and the date that each opt-in plaintiff files his or her consent form." Id. Moreover, the Court has found no authority that Congress intended for courts to deny all requests for extension of time prior to the provision of notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs and the conclusion of the opt-in period, unless the defendant enters a tolling agreement. Further, to deny the requested extension here would be particularly unjust. Counsel for Defendant have represented as officers of the Court that they require an additional 30 days to prepare a proper answer or other responsive filing to 1 Complaint, which proposes not only a federal-law collective action, but also a state-law class action, and which features eight roman-numeraled sections containing 58 arabic-numbered paragraphs, along with an additional, unnumbered "Relief Sought" section listing 13 Arabic-numbered forms of relief. That representation appears eminently reasonable given not only the nature and scope of the Complaint, but also the fact that Plaintiff and his counsel waited more than six months after Plaintiff signed on with said counsel (on 06/13/2016, according to [1-2] Consent to Join Wage Claim) before they filed 1 Complaint (on 12/16/2016). In other words, Plaintiff took six months to prepare 1 Complaint (during which time the statute of limitations was running as to any putative, opt-in plaintiffs), but now would have the Court deny Defendant a total of less that two months to respond to 1 Complaint because the statute of limitations is running as to any putative, opt-in plaintiffs. The Court declines to adopt that approach, particularly given that opt-in plaintiffs can seek equitable tolling on an individualized basis. See, e.g., id. at 1076-78. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 03/15/2017. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 03/15/2017)" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01414_de17 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01414_de17 hasJudgeReference SJ004076 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01414_de17 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01414_de0 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01414_de17 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01414_de13 @default.