Putnam v. Galaxy 1 Marketing, Inc.
276 F.R.D. 264
S.D. Iowa2011Background
- Motion for conditional certification of a collective action under FLSA §216(b) by Putnam, Rob Putnam, and others similarly situated against Galaxy, HD Connection, Williams, and Voss.
- Galaxy allegedly classified satellite installation technicians as independent contractors and controlled job levels, pay, and scheduling across multiple states.
- HD Connection entered an ICA with Galaxy in 2009 and employed technicians; its involvement is claimed to be part of a unified enterprise.
- Plaintiffs allege overtime violations under 29 U.S.C. §207 and minimum wage violations under 29 U.S.C. §206, based on a common policy of misclassification and underpayment.
- Defendants challenge certification on timeliness, the breadth of the proposed class, and the adequacy of notice; discovery and class-list production are implicated.
- Court granted conditional class certification, approved form of notice with modifications, and outlined notice procedures and tolling provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the motion for certification | Timeliness excused by delayed document production. | Motion untimely under Local Rule 23 due to long lapse since filing. | Timeliness granted; motion deemed timely under circumstances. |
| Whether plaintiffs are similarly situated | There is a common policy of misclassification across offices; affidavits show common practices. | Differences between areas and eight states undermine similarity; HD Connection involvement is limited. | Plaintiffs meet the threshold of similarity at the notice stage; class preliminarily conditionally certified. |
| Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations | Equitable tolling warranted due to defendants’ delay in providing information. | No tolling where delay stems from plaintiffs’ actions; no requirement to disclose contact info. | Equitable tolling denied from filing to opt-in deadline; tolling allowed from motion date for 45-day notice period. |
| Form and dissemination of notice | Notice via mail, pay-envelope insert, and posting are appropriate and necessary; three methods are acceptable. | Posting and mailing should be limited; equitable tolling not triggered by notice plan. | Notice approved with two dissemination methods (mail and posting); pay-envelope insert denied; 45-day opt-in period set. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (statutory notice principles and two-step certification framework referenced)
- Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 254 F.R.D. 97 (S.D. Iowa 2008) (two-step §216(b) analysis; notice-stage cert. appropriate)
- Davis v. NovaStar Mortg., Inc., 408 F. Supp. 2d 811 (W.D. Mo. 2005) (two-step approach and conditional certification standards)
- Jones v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc., 266 F.R.D. 222 (S.D. Iowa 2009) (granted conditional certification for a large putative class in the district)
- Dietrich v. Liberty Square, L.L.C., 230 F.R.D. 574 (N.D. Iowa 2005) (two-step approach origin and notice-stage standard)