Foreman v. Five Star Service, Inc., 3:11-cv-01124

Foreman and Runge worked for Five Star as vending route drivers and Avanti Market Merchandisers; they claim unpaid overtime under FLSA §216(b) and Foreman alleges retaliation for subpoena compliance.
Five Star moved for summary judgment on all claims; court granted Foreman partial summary judgment on FLSA claim and found MCA exemption did not apply, leaving Runge and retaliation issues for trial.
Five Star filed a Motion to Reconsider with four new affidavits about interstate commerce; plaintiffs sought to strike the new evidence or conduct discovery, arguing it should not be considered.
Rule 54 interlocutory reconsideration standard permits relief for intervening legal changes, new evidence, or preventing manifest injustice; court noted potential manifest injustice and the need for a fuller record.
Court found clear error in cross-motions analysis, vacated the previous order as to FLSA claims, reopened discovery for 90 days to test new information, and ordered supplemental briefing on whether judgment for Five Star is warranted based on the supplemented record.
Court clarified that reconsideration only affects FLSA findings and that the parties should file copies of referenced authorities and proceed with supplemental briefing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the MCA exemption applies to Foreman’s FLSA claim.	Foreman contends MCA exemption does not apply.	Five Star contends MCA exemption applies or that reconsideration is warranted based on new evidence.	Reconsideration granted; FLSA findings vacated in part and discovery reopened.
Whether the cross-motions for summary judgment were analyzed correctly.	Court should apply standard that favors plaintiffs on cross-motions.	Court followed proper approach but erred.	Court identifies clear error and grants reconsideration.
Whether the new affidavits create a genuine dispute requiring discovery.	New evidence should be strikeable or limited discovery inappropriate.	New evidence potentially material to MCA, warranting testing.	Discovery reopened for 90 days to test supplemented record.
Whether the reconsideration should extend to all issues or only FLSA claims.			Reconsideration limited to FLSA claims; other findings remain unaffected.

Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App’x 949 (6th Cir. 2004) (authority for reconsideration of interlocutory orders when justified)
Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir. 1991) (basis for reconsideration standard)
In re Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 589 F.3d 319 (6th Cir. 2009) (reconsideration vitality and record supplementation)
Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov’t v. Hotels.com, L.P., 590 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard for reopening interlocutory orders)
Dixon v. Univ. of Toledo, 702 F.3d 269 (6th Cir. 2012) (cross-motions for summary judgment—draw all inferences against movant)
Baird v. Wagoner Transp. Co., 425 F.2d 407 (6th Cir. 1969) (expresses standard notions for MCA-related analysis)
Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564 (1943) (practical continuity of movement standard)