Jones v. SuperMedia Inc.
2012 WL 995292
N.D. Tex.2012Background
- FLSA claim for unpaid overtime; seven named plaintiffs were former SuperMedia IDS salespersons (inside sales).
- Plaintiffs’ duties included selling advertising; many had titles like “media consultant” or “sales associate.”
- Plaintiffs alleged overtime issues and commissions not included in regular rate; location at Irving, Texas call center.
- Defendants offered Rule 68 judgment July 28, 2011; three named plaintiffs accepted; rest amended complaint August 18, 2011.
- Court denied motion to dismiss without prejudice; Plaintiffs sought conditional certification for a FLSA collective action; potential class includes many inside salespersons nationwide.
- Plaintiffs submitted four declarations alleging improper time-keeping and overtime practices; court allowed amendment and assessed notice-stage certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 68 moots the case | Offer insufficient to moot} | Offer fully satisfies claims | Offer insufficient; jurisdiction retained |
| Whether Plaintiffs had standing to amend after mootness | Amendment timely and proper | Offer moots original claim, disables amendment | Plaintiffs had standing to amend |
| Whether collective action certification is appropriate at notice stage | Similar duties and pay, common policy | No company-wide policy; cases depend on individual managers | Conditionally certified; notice permitted |
| Whether plaintiffs are similarly situated to proceed collectively | Declarations show common policy to underpay overtime | Off-the-clock claims rely on individual actions | Sufficiently similarly situated at notice stage |
| Whether opt-in should be allowed given potential class size | Many aggrieved exist; opt-in appropriate | Unclear if others exist | Opt-in permitted at notice stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913 (5th Cir.2008) (mootness considerations for Rule 68 offers in FLSA suits)
- Tolentino v. C & J Spec-Rent Servs., Inc., 716 F. Supp. 2d 642 (S.D. Tex.2010) (two-step approach to § 216(b) certification; notice stage)
- Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir.1995) (two-step approach to collective action certification)
- Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (5th Cir.1981) (facial vs factual jurisdiction attacks; evidentiary burden)
- Rollins v. Systems Integration, Inc., 2006 WL 3486781 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2006) (evidentiary burden after mootness assertion)