United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
MICHELLE WARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated PLAINTIFF
LITTLE JOHN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.; CHRISTOPHER DALE; and STEVEN DALE DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are Plaintiff Michelle Warner's motion (Doc.
43) for certification of a class action, brief in support
(Doc. 44) of the motion, and Defendants' response (Doc.
49) in opposition. Plaintiff seeks Rule 23 class
certification of an Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
(“AMWA”) claim premised on allegations that she
and other “Agents” or “Freight
Brokers” were not paid overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours. The Court has already
conditionally certified a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.
(“FLSA”). (Doc. 37). The motion to certify a Rule
23 AMWA class will be denied.
a class can be certified under Rule 23, the movant must
demonstrate that the class representatives are members of the
class and that:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). A class that meets these four
requirements may proceed with its action if it also qualifies
as one of the types of actions that may be maintained under
Rule 23(b). The burden is on the party seeking certification
to demonstrate with evidentiary proof that Rule 23(b) is
satisfied. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27,
seeks class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). (Doc. 44, p.
9). A class action may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) if
“the court finds that the questions of law or fact
common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(b)(3) (emphasis added). The Rule provides a nonexclusive
list of matters pertinent to these findings:
(A) the class members' interest in individually
controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the
controversy already begun by or against class members;
(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the
litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and
(D) the likely difficulties in managing a ...