Lace v. Fortis Plastics, LLC
295 F.R.D. 192
N.D. Ind.2013Background
- Plaintiff Henry Lace worked at Fortis Plastics’ South Bend facility, which closed in late Nov/Dec 2011, terminating roughly 63–71 employees. Lace sued on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees under the WARN Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute, later adding Monomoy as an alleged affiliated owner.
- Lace alleges Fortis (and Monomoy as a potential "single employer") failed to give the 60-days' notice required by the WARN Act and seeks back pay/benefits, declaratory relief, interest, and attorney fees. He also alleges unpaid accrued vacation under Indiana law.
- Defendants contested class certification and Monomoy moved to dismiss; the court addressed class certification first for judicial economy and reserved ruling on the motion to dismiss.
- Lace proposed a class of all persons employed at or reporting to the South Bend facility terminated around Dec. 1, 2011, and a subclass of those owed accrued vacation under Indiana law. He also sought certification under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).
- The court performed the Rule 23 rigorous analysis: it found the Proposed Class met numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy and that Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority were satisfied; it found the Proposed Subclass failed numerosity, typicality, and adequacy.
- The court modified the class definition to a readily identifiable cohort (those who worked at 3615 Voorde Dr., South Bend on the date 60 days before the facility closed), certified the WARN Act class under Rule 23(b)(3), appointed class counsel, and declined to certify under Rule 23(b)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed class meets numerosity for WARN Act claims | Lace: ~63 (or 71 per facility notice) affected employees; joinder impracticable | Fortis: original pleadings insufficient to prove class size; challenged admissions | Held: Numerosity satisfied for Proposed Class (63–71). Proposed Subclass not shown numerosity. |
| Whether commonality, typicality, and adequacy under Rule 23(a) are met for the WARN Act class | Lace: core issues (employer identity, plant closing/mass layoff, notice) are common; his claim typical and he is adequate rep | Fortis: may be individual factual differences and unique defenses; discovery needed to test adequacy/typicality | Held: Rule 23(a) satisfied for Proposed Class (common questions predominate; no unique defenses shown); Proposed Subclass fails typicality/adequacy. |
| Whether class can be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) for declaratory/injunctive relief | Lace: seeks declaratory relief as to employer liability and notice | Fortis: monetary relief predominates and (implicitly) opt-out/notice protections warrant (b)(3) | Held: Denied (b)(2) — requested declaratory relief is aimed at obtaining individual monetary awards, so (b)(2) inappropriate. |
| Whether class can be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) (predominance/superiority) and the proper class definition | Lace: common legal issues predominate; class action is superior to individual suits | Fortis: factual variations and individualized damages/benefits issues could overwhelm common issues | Held: Certified under Rule 23(b)(3); court rewrote class definition to those employed at 3615 Voorde Dr. on the date 60 days before closing; class counsel appointed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (requires rigorous Rule 23 analysis and proof of Rule 23(a) prerequisites)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (district court must ensure actual conformance with Rule 23(a))
- Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSys., 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir.) (predominance and when individualized issues defeat certification)
- Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788 (7th Cir.) (Rule 23(a) prerequisites and burden on plaintiff seeking certification)
- Szabo v. Bridgeport Machs., Inc., 249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir.) (court must receive evidence and resolve material factual disputes before certifying)