Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00300-JJF Document 166-2 Filed O2/14/2007 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A

2005 W 180005 . Pa e 1 of2
LCase 1:05-cv-00300-JJF Document 166-2 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 2 of§
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1800054 (D.DeI.)
Motions, Pleadings and Filings
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court,
D. Delaware.
Willie DAVIS, Jr., Nathaniel Briddell, Joseph Garrison, Larry E. Gibbs, Roy H. Walters, and All
Similarly-Situated Current and Former Employees of Mountaire Farms, Inc., Mountaire Farms of
Delmarva, Inc., and Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., Plaintiffs,
v.
MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, a Delaware
corporation, and Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants.
No. Civ.A.04-414—KAJ.
July 29, 2005.
Jeffrey K. Martin, P.A., Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiffs.
Matthew F. Boyer, Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz, Wilmington, DE, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
JORDAN., J.
*1 Willie Davis, Jr., Nathaniel Briddell, Joseph Garrison, Larry E. Gibbs, and Roy H. Walters
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") have filed a Motion for Reargument (Docket Item ["D.I."] 57; the "Motion")
of the Memorandum Opinion (D.I.55) and Order (D.I.56) issued in this case on June 28, 2005. The
Motion is opposed by Mountaire Farms, Inc., Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, Inc., and Mountaire
Farms of Delaware, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). (D.I.58.) For the reasons that follow, the Motion
is denied.
Nothing in the Plaintiffs' filing persuades me that the already fully briefed and fully considered issues
in this case should be revisited.
The standards that apply to motions for reargument and reconsideration have been stated as follows:
The District of Delaware, through published case law, has developed rules that govern motions for
reargument under Local Rule 7.1.5. These governing principles are simply stated: 1) reargument
should be granted only when the merits clearly warrant and should never be afforded a litigant if
reargument would not result in an amendment of an order; 2) the purpose of reargument is to permit
the Court to correct error without unduly sacrificing finality; 3) grant of the reargument motion can
only occur in one of three circumstances: a) "where the Court has patently misunderstood a party,"
b) "[where the Court] has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by
the parties," or c) "[where the Court] has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension[;]" and
4) a motion for reargument may not be used by the losing litigant as a vehicle to supplement or
enlarge the record provided to the Court and upon which the merits decision was made unless "new
factual matters not previously obtainable have been discovered since the issue was submitted to the
Court[.]"
Schering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F.Supp.2d 293, 295 (D.Del.1998) (citations omitted).
Here, the Plaintiffs have failed to meet those standards. First, they seek to introduce a new argument
that Defendants wilfully failed to pay overtime prior to June or July 2002, when Plaintiffs became
salaried employees. (D.I. 57 at Ml 1-3.) But that argument "has not been addressed by the briefing
and/or resolved by the Court" (D.I. 57 at 1] 4) and is therefore not properly the subject of a motion
for reargument. It is simply an attempt "t0 argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not
presented to the court in the matter previously decided." Bramb/es USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp.
1239, 1240 (D.Del.1990).·FNl
http://web2.west1aw.com/result/documenttext.aspx‘?service=Find&rs=WLW7.01&cnt:DO... 2/14/2007

2005 WL 1800054 _ Pa o 2 of2
Case 1:05-cv-00300-JJF Document 166-2 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 3 of§
Fg Even assuming, however, that I were to consider Plaintiffs' new argument, their
Motion would still be unfounded. Plaintiffs fail to present any evidence in support of their
assertion that Defendants wilfully failed to pay overtime.
Plaintiffs' second argument, that crew leaders lacked authority to effectively hire an fire employees
(D.I. 57 at iii] 5-16), is nothing more than a "repetition of arguments already briefed, considered and
decided." FN2 ,735 F,S_u_p_p,__at 1240 (citations omitted). Plaintiffs argue that I relied upon an
unsupported statement by defense counsel characterizing the deposition testimony of Mr. Lynch as
being that "Defendants human resource department is not involved in recruiting and hiring chicken
catchers and does not advertise for chicken catcher positions." (D.I. 57 at iii] 6-7.) Lynch's testimony
as a whole, however, establishes that crew leaders (a) make the recommendation to human
resources regarding whom to hire as a chicken catcher, (b) are responsible for maintaining a full crew
and recruiting the catchers, and (c) have authority to recommend termination. (D.I. 45, Ex. 32 at
AOO838-43, A00846—49.) Human resources is generally involved only in administrative tasks such as
pre-employment (medical) screening, ensuring, if necessary, validity of immigration papers, and
issuing company IDs. ( Id. at A00841-43) Even if human resources made the ultimate determination
as to who gets hired based on the medical examination and paperwork (D.I. 45, Ex. 32 at A00842).
reconsideration of my earlier opinion is not warranted because the outcome would not change.
FN2, Plaintiffs also urge me to consider (which I have) the affidavits of those Plaintiffs
who have not been involved in firing of any chicken catchers. (D.I. 57 at 1] 16.) Even if
not all Plaintiffs have fired catchers, involvement in firing is not the standard by which to
determine whether an employee is exempt. See 29_C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(4).
*2 Plaintiffs further cite to deposition testimony of Mr. Walters "who stated repeatedly that as a
crew leader, he has no input as to who gets hired." (D.I. 57 at 1] 8.) While Mr. Walters did not
concede having suggested anybody for hire, he "informed [Mr. Drummond] of the position that he
had to go through in order to get a job go through company policy to work for Mountaire go
through the channels, go through personnel, drug tests after Drummond, who worked for Walters
at the time the deposition was taken, inquired of Walters how to get a job with Defendants. (D.I. 45,
Ex. 29 at 692-93.) Thus, the record supports that Mr. Walters was involved in getting Drummond
hired.
Plaintiffs, with both arguments, have failed to meet the legal standard for reargument and, therefore,
their motion must be denied. Accordingly, ITIS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reargument (D.I.57) is DENIED.
Copr. (C) West 2007 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works D.DeI.,2005.
Davis v. Mountaire Farms, Inc.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1800054 (D.Del.)
Motions, Pleadings and Filings (Back to top)
• 2005 V5/L__2385501 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Reargument (Jul. 27, 2005) Original Image of this Document (PDF)
• 1:04CV004_14 (Docket) (Jun. 21, 2004)
END OF DOCUMENT
(C) 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http ://web2.west1aw.com/result/documenttcxt.aspx?scrvice=Find&rs=WLW7 .01 &cnt=DO. .. 2/14/2007