Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Warner v. Little John Transportation Services, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division

July 24, 2019

MICHELLE WARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated PLAINTIFF
v.
LITTLE JOHN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.; CHRISTOPHER DALE; and STEVEN DALE DEFENDANTS

          OPINION AND ORDER

          P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before 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.

         Before 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 impracticable;
(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, 33-34 (2013).

         Plaintiff 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.