Adami v. Cardo Windows, Inc.
299 F.R.D. 68
D.N.J.2014Background
- Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of a FLSA opt-in collective action and Rule 23 opt-out NJ wage class; defenses oppose.
- Court grants conditional FLSA certification excluding helpers and installers with arbitration/class waivers.
- NJWHL class certification denied without prejudice due to pending NJ Supreme Court decision on employee vs. independent contractor test.
- Cardo Windows operates as Castle; installers work across multiple states with varied facilities and classifications.
- Installers are paid on a per-job basis; Cardo provides materials; some installers sign independent contractor/master subcontractor agreements.
- Court addresses tolling, discovery scope, and related motions (seal, and breach-of-contract counterclaims).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to conditionally certify a FLSA collective action | Varner/Adami assert similarly situated installers nationwide. | Issues require individual employee/IC determinations; include helpers/arbitration signees. | Granted conditionally, excluding helpers and arbitration/class-waiver installers. |
| Whether to certify a Rule 23 NJ wage class under NJWHL | Common questions predominate; similar duties and pay across installers. | Predominance/ascertainability fail due to NJ employee/contractor test and class identities. | Denied without prejudice pending NJ Supreme Court test; issues of predominance and ascertainability unresolved. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to FLSA limitations | Defendants withholding names/addresses justifies tolling. | No tolling; disclosure issues insufficient; no misleading conduct shown. | Denied; no equitable tolling. |
| Whether to seal certain IRS 1099 exhibits | Public disclosure of personal/financial information should be limited. | Exhibits contain private data justifying secrecy. | Granted as to exhibits 13a-d and 15. |
| Whether Cardo’s counterclaims for breach of contract against Adami/Varner should survive | Counterclaims improperly threaten plaintiffs; misclassification not breach. | Counterclaims based on contract and implied covenant; some claims valid. | Dismissed against Varner; upheld against Adami (implied covenant claim survives). |
Key Cases Cited
- Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 691 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2012) (guides the 'similarly situated' analysis in the Third Circuit)
- Symczyk v. Genesis HealthCare Corp., 656 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2011) (discusses (rev’d on other grounds) conditional certification framework)
- Morisky v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 111 F.Supp.2d 493 (D.N.J. 2000) (describes the notice-stage for conditional certification)
- Martin v. Selker Bros., Inc., 949 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir. 1991) (non-dispositive Martin factors for employee vs. independent contractor)
- Donovan v. DialAmerica Mktg., Inc., 757 F.2d 1356 (3d Cir. 1985) (economic reality test considerations for employment status)
- In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (predominance standard in class certification is demanding)