Hodge v. Synergy Inspections, LLC
5:24-cv-00177
S.D.W. VaJun 16, 2025Background
- Brian Hodge filed a class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees against Synergy Inspections, LLC and FIRMSO, LLC, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act.
- Hodge asserts he and over 100 other employees were terminated on March 15, 2024, without the required 60-day notice under WARN, and were not paid for that notification period.
- Defendants failed to appear or respond to the lawsuit, leading to entry of default.
- Hodge moved for default judgment and class certification; the Court found damages were not specified and scheduled an evidentiary hearing for damages.
- The Court considered and granted class certification, finding the proposed class satisfied all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Default judgment against Defendants | Defendants failed to appear/respond | No argument (no appearance) | Default judgment on liability is warranted. |
| Damages determination | Amount not specified, need hearing | No argument | Damages require evidentiary hearing; not yet decided. |
| Class certification under Rule 23 | Class is ascertainable, numerous, has commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority | No argument | All Rule 23 requirements met; class certified. |
| Appointment of class representative/counsel | Hodge is adequate rep; counsel is experienced | No argument | Hodge appointed as class rep; current counsel appointed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidt v. FCI Enters. LLC, 3 F.4th 95 (4th Cir. 2021) (explains WARN Act purpose and requirements for notice)
- Long v. Dunlop Sports Grp. Americas, Inc., 506 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2007) (discusses WARN Act's remedies and calculation of damages)
- Tolson v. Hodge, 411 F.2d 123 (4th Cir. 1969) (emphasizes preference for resolving cases on the merits, not by default)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (articulates standards for class certification and predominance)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (key precedent on Rule 23 standards for class actions)
- Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (discusses class action requirements of predominance and superiority)