Tripp v. Perdue Foods LLC
1:24-cv-00987
| D. Maryland | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Barbara Tripp filed a collective action against Perdue Foods LLC, alleging Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations on behalf of chicken growers classified as independent contractors.
- The class was conditionally certified for those who grew chickens for Perdue from April 4, 2021, onward.
- Notices sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs specified that claims were limited by the FLSA’s two- or three-year statute of limitations.
- Perdue moved to strike or dismiss seven opt-in plaintiffs’ claims as time-barred, based on discrepancies between plaintiffs’ self-reported service dates and Perdue’s internal records.
- Discovery has just begun, and the court had not yet resolved factual disputes about the alleged time-barred status of the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strike consent forms via Rule 12(f) | Rule 12(f) does not authorize striking non-pleading documents like opt-in forms. | Rule 12(f) allows striking immaterial matters, so applies to late opt-ins. | Opt-in forms are not pleadings; Rule 12(f) does not apply. |
| Dismiss claims via Rules 21 or 41(b) | Dismissal is premature, as plaintiffs should be heard and participate in discovery. | Dismissal appropriate for alleged failure to comply with court-approved notice/statute guidance. | Rules 21 and 41(b) do not authorize dismissal in these circumstances; court declines to dismiss. |
| Inherent authority to dismiss | Claims should proceed to discovery to resolve factual discrepancies; early dismissal is unfair. | Court's inherent authority and Rule 1 require speedy, efficient resolution of time-barred claims. | Court declines to dismiss prematurely; restraint is warranted, especially before discovery completes. |
| Exclude from individualized discovery | Removing plaintiffs from discovery pool prejudices their rights and violates agreed procedures. | Exclusion avoids wasted discovery on ultimately barred claims, preserving resources. | Denied; involvement in discovery is necessary to resolve timeliness and relevance of claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807 (4th Cir. 1978) (district courts should exercise restraint in dismissing cases on procedural grounds without addressing merits)