Manning v. Gold Belt Falcon, LLC

Citations: 817 F. Supp. 2d 451; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114597; 2011 WL 4583776Docket: Civil Action No. 08-3427 (JEI/KMW)

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey; October 5, 2011; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendants Bionetics, Goldbelt Eagle, and Gold Belt Falcon filed a Motion to Dismiss claims from individuals who either failed to submit or submitted untimely consent forms to join a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs, employed as role players in military training exercises, initially filed their complaint on July 10, 2008, alleging unpaid overtime wages. The Court granted conditional certification of the collective action on September 29, 2010, establishing a 120-day opt-in period for potential class members.

The FLSA mandates that each plaintiff must provide written consent to join the lawsuit, and their attorney must file this consent with the Court. The opt-in period closed on March 22, 2011. Defendants argued that twelve plaintiffs’ consents were not filed by this deadline, warranting their dismissal from the case.

The twelve plaintiffs fall into three groups: 

1. Eight plaintiffs whose signed consent forms were filed late (one to six days after the deadline).
2. Sharis Manning, the lead plaintiff, who did not sign a consent form but had indicated her awareness of the suit through a deposition and declaration.
3. Named plaintiffs Brandon Drew, Joshua Goldberg, and Chad Waters, who acknowledged their participation in depositions but did not sign written consents.

The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss will partially grant and partially deny the Defendants' request based on the specifics of each group's circumstances.

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires written consent from employees to join a collective action, which must be filed in the relevant court (29 U.S.C. 216(b)). The statute does not specify the form or timing for consent. Courts have allowed flexibility regarding form, provided the document indicates consent, as seen in Ketchum v. City of Vallejo, and in Mendez v. Radec, Corp., where an affirmation sufficed. Timing involves two unspecified deadlines: the last day to sign and submit written consent and the deadline for filing consent with the court, which was silent in this case.

Defendants' motion seeks to dismiss three groups of plaintiffs for failing to meet these consent requirements. 

1. The first group consists of eight plaintiffs who submitted the court-approved consent form to their attorney. Defendants claim the attorney filed these forms one to six days late. The court disagrees, stating that the opt-in period only defined when plaintiffs must submit consent to their attorneys, and since the court did not establish a filing deadline, the filing was timely.

2. The second group comprises Plaintiff Manning, who did not complete the court-approved consent form but submitted a sworn declaration acknowledging participation. The court finds that this declaration meets the written consent requirement, thus denying the motion against Manning.

3. The third group includes three named plaintiffs who did not submit any written consent. Defendants argue there are no exceptions for this failure, and the court agrees that even named plaintiffs must comply with the written consent requirement. The court rejects the argument that their depositions imply consent, concluding that their lack of written consent justifies granting the motion to dismiss for Plaintiffs Brandon Drew, Joshua Goldberg, and Chad Waters.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants the Motion regarding Plaintiffs Brandon Drew, Joshua Goldberg, and Chad Waters, allowing them leave to belatedly comply with the consent requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), without determining the merits of such compliance. Conversely, the Motion is denied for Plaintiffs Christi Reeves, Rashad Chavis, Valencio Creque, Sandra Devin, Rachel Donofrio, Richard Karwoski, Vanessa Lemanski, Alfred Wilson, and Sharis Manning. A prior claim concerning the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law was dismissed with prejudice. The Court notes that while some plaintiffs could have forwarded consent forms timely, class counsel did not receive them until after the deadline. Defendants retain the right to contest future opt-ins, with the exception of Rashad Chavis, whose consent was filed late but assumed to be within the opt-in period. The Court clarifies that the Motion pertains to consent failure rather than the statute of limitations, rendering cited cases irrelevant. The Court emphasizes the non-jurisdictional nature of the consent deadline and acknowledges the incongruity of unsworn written consent sufficing where sworn oral testimony does not. Ultimately, the Court permits the aforementioned plaintiffs to file a motion for belated compliance with consent requirements.