Butler v. DIRECTSAT USA, LLC
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72341
D. Maryland2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to pay overtime under the FLSA and Maryland/DC wage laws for service/production technicians in MD, VA, and DC.
- Plaintiffs claim they were misclassified as non-exempt and under-recorded hours; they performed unpaid time on tasks before/after work.
- Jeffry Butler and Charles Dorsey are representative plaintiffs; Butler had been an opt-in in a Wisconsin action but that action later decertified.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on December 17, 2010, asserting first-to-file, pleading sufficiency, preemption, and Rule 23 incompatibility.
- The court ruled with partial grant/partial denial, addressing FLSA pleading, preemption, and Rule 23 compatibility, among other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butler is barred by first-to-file rule | Butler withdrew from Wisconsin action; claims should proceed here | First-to-file still precludes duplication | First-to-file no longer precludes Butler; Butler may proceed here |
| Whether FLSA overtime claims are adequately pled post-Iqbal/Twombly | Plaintiffs allege overtime hours and related conduct; sufficient notice | Need more precise overtime hour figures | Plaintiffs state a plausible FLSA overtime claim (and related state-law claims) |
| Whether MWPCL claim should be dismissed | MWPCL supplements overtime entitlement claims | MWPCL does not cover overtime entitlement claims | MWPCL claim dismissed as to overtime entitlement; focus remains on MWHL for payment claims |
| Whether state-law claims are preempted by FLSA | FLSA savings clause allows parallel state-law remedies | State-law claims preempted or duplicative | Not preempted; Maryland remedies available alongside FLSA claims |
| Whether Rule 23 class action and FLSA §216(b) collective action can coexist | Coexistence allowed by several district courts; REA not violated | Opt-in vs opt-out conflict creates irreconcilable inconsistency | Compatible; both claims may proceed, subject to certification requirements later |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-LaRoche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (statutory opt-in under FLSA Portal-to-Portal Act; limits on class actions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requiring plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1988) (willfulness standard for extended statute of limitations)
- Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC, 708 F. Supp. 2d 781 (W.D. Wis. 2010) (discusses compatibility of FLSA collective and Rule 23 actions)
- Williams v. Md. Office Relocators, 485 F. Supp. 2d 616 (D. Md. 2007) (state wage claims alongside FLSA claims; preemption considerations)
- Ervin v. OS Rest. Servs., Inc., 632 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2011) (permits simultaneous FLSA collective and Rule 23 state-law actions)