Hutt v. Greenix Pest Control LLC, 2:20-cv-01108

Plaintiff Kenneth Hutt filed suit against Greenix Pest Control LLC, Greenix Holdings LLC, Matthew Flanders, Robert Nilsen, and Nilsen Ventures LLC, ultimately amending his complaint twice to a Second Amended Complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss; on November 24, 2020 the Court dismissed Hutt’s FLSA collective claims for non-Ohio putative class members (for out-of-Ohio conduct) and dismissed non-Ohio state wage-and-hour claims (Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey) for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court also dismissed individual defendants Flanders, Nilsen, and Nilsen Ventures for failure to allege an employment relationship or operational control beyond ownership.
Hutt moved to stay the case pending the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Canaday v. Anthem, arguing that the decision could affect whether a district court may exercise specific jurisdiction over claims by out-of-state putative class members.
Hutt also filed a motion for partial reconsideration, arguing the Court dismissed the individual defendants on a ground not raised by defendants and without opportunity to respond.
The Court denied the motion to stay and denied the motion for partial reconsideration, holding the stay was not warranted and that dismissal of the individuals was properly based on arguments in defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to stay proceedings pending Sixth Circuit decision in Canaday	A stay is needed because Canaday may decide whether specific jurisdiction exists over out-of-state putative plaintiffs	Pendency of a parallel appeal is not automatic stay; stay would prejudice defendants and delay resolution; Hutt’s individual claims unaffected	Denied — no pressing need, prejudice to defendants, and judicial economy favors denial
Whether court has personal jurisdiction over claims of out-of-state putative class/collective members	Canaday could change law to permit jurisdiction over out-of-state putative plaintiffs; thus proceedings should pause	The Court previously concluded it lacks personal jurisdiction for non-Ohio FLSA and non-Ohio state-law claims; no opt-ins have appeared; relatedness to forum lacking	Court previously dismissed non-Ohio collective and state-law claims for lack of personal jurisdiction; stay does not change that outcome
Whether dismissal of Flanders, Nilsen, and Nilsen Ventures was improper and unexplained	Dismissal was based on a ground not argued by defendants, depriving Hutt of opportunity to respond	Defendants’ motion argued Hutt failed to allege an employment relationship or operational control beyond ownership	Denied — reconsideration denied; dismissal proper because allegations showed only ownership, not control or management responsibility

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (district court authority to stay proceedings to manage docket)
Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393 (6th Cir.) (movant bears burden to show pressing need for stay and no harm to others)
Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (interlocutory orders are subject to reopening at district court’s discretion)
Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir. 1991) (district court may modify or rescind interlocutory orders)
Canaday v. Anthem Companies, Inc., 439 F. Supp. 3d 1042 (W.D. Tenn. 2020) (district court dismissed opt‑in out‑of‑state plaintiffs whose claims were not related to defendants’ forum activities)