Manning v. Gold Belt Falcon, LLC
817 F. Supp. 2d 451
D.N.J.2011Background
- Defendants employed Plaintiffs as COB role players for military training exercises.
- Plaintiffs filed a collective action under FLSA alleging unpaid overtime in 2008.
- Court granted conditional certification in 2010, initiating a 120-day opt-in period.
- Court approved a specific opt-in notice and required prospective plaintiffs to send consent forms to counsel within the period.
- Opt-in period closed on March 22, 2011, but the Court’s orders did not specify a separate deadline for filing consents with the Court.
- Plaintiffs formed three groups regarding consent: eight unnamed plaintiffs who filed with delay but timely signed; Manning who signed no Court-approved consent but submitted a declaration; three named plaintiffs who did not sign any consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether late filing of Court-approved consents warrants dismissal. | Drew group filed late but promptly; Manning's declaration sufficed; three named plaintiffs did sign none. | Consents not filed by deadline or in proper form require dismissal. | Group1 denied dismissal; Manning denied for lack of proper form but declaration sufficed; Group3 dismissed. |
| What constitutes valid consent form and timing under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). | Any written, signed indication of consent is acceptable; timing is flexible given silent statute. | Formal Court-approved consent and timely filing are required. | Consent can be written in flexible form; timing is not strictly defined by statute, and filing delays may be reasonable. |
| Whether named plaintiffs who did not sign consent can proceed as party plaintiffs. | Named plaintiffs’ status and depositions might imply consent. | Written and filed consent is required even for named plaintiffs. | Group3 dismissed; named plaintiffs without signed written consent cannot proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendez v. Radec, Corp., 260 F.R.D. 38 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (written declaration can satisfy § 216(b) consent where form not court-approved)
- Harkins v. Riverboat Services, Inc., 385 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2004) (consent to join may be satisfied even if not in exact Court-approved form)