. "`i'
in TI-ie umTEo STATES DISTRICT comm §iQs‘3,'iEic,·r,;oaat
Foe THE DISTRICT oe DELAWARE it i is =t
WILLIE DA)/iS, JR., NATHANIEL ) ‘
BRIDDELL, JOSEPH GARRiSON, _ )
LARRY E. GIBBS. ROY I-l. WALTERS, )
and ALL SIMlLARLY—SlTUATED )
CURRENT AND FORMER ) · F - ,
EMPLOYEES OF MOUNTAIRE FARMS, *)
INC., MOUNTAIRESFARMS OF _ ) ` `
· DELMARVA, INC., and MOUNTAIRE ) ·
FARMS OF DELAWARE. INC., ) -
J
Plaintiffs, }
. }
v. _ )
. ) Civil Action No. 04-414-KAJ
_ MOUNTAIRE FARMS, ENC., a Delaware )
corporation, MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF )
DELMARVA, a Delaware corporation, )
and ll/IOUNTAiRE FARMS OF ) ·
DELAWARE, INC., a Delaware ) _ `
corporation, )
Defendants. )
l
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Willie Davis, Jr., Nathaniel Brlddeil, Joseph Garriaon, Lamy E. Gibbs, and Roy l—i.
Walters (coliectively, "F’laintiffsâ€) have filed a Motion for Reargument (Docket Item
[“D.I.â€] 57; the "Motion") of the Memorandum Opinion (D.l. 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 Deimatva, Inc., and Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.
{collectively, "Defendantsâ€). (D.l. 58.) For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.
` ( Case. 1 :04-cv-00414-SLR Document 119-2 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 2 of 4
‘ Nothing in the Plaintiffs tiling persuades rne that the already fully briefed and
fully considered issues in this case should be revisited. g
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 statedi 1) reargument should be granted
only when the merits clearly warrant and should never be afforded a
litlgant 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
r- 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 reargurnent may not be used by the
losing iitigant 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. ’l99S) (citations
omitted);
l-lere, the Plaintiffs have failed to meet those standards. First, thy seek to
C . introduce a new argument that Defendants wilfully failed to pay overtime prior to June
or July 2002, when Plaintiffs became salaried employees.- (DJ. 57 at itil 1-3.) But that
argument “has not been addressed by the briefing andior resolved bythe Court" (D.l.
57 at il 4) and is therefore not properly the subject of a motion for reargument. It is
. 1 simply an attempt “to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to
I at _ I Case 1 :04-cv-00414-SLR Document 1 19-2 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 3 of 4
the court in the matter previously decided" Brembles USA, inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.
Supp. 1239, 1240 {D. Del. 1990)} - _
Plaintiffs second argument, that crew leaders tacked authority to effectively hire
an fire employees {D.l. 57 at till] 5-1 G), is nothing more than a "repetition of arguments
already briefed, considered and decided."2 7351:. Supp. at 1240 (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs argue that l relied upon an unsupported statement by defense counsel
characterlzing 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? {DJ. 57 at {lil 5-7.) 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, (in) are responsible for
maintaining a full crew and recruiting the catchers, and (c) have authority to recommend
termination. (D.l. 45, Ex. 32 at A0083843, AD0846-49.) Human resources is generally
involved only in administrative tasks such as pre-emptoyment (medical) screening,
ensuring, if necessary, validity of immigration papers, and issuing company lDs. (ld. at
A00841-43) Even if human resources made the ultimate determination as to who gets i
hired based on the medical examination and paperwork (ill. 45, Ex. 32 at AOOB42),
iiiven assuming, however, that l were to consider Plaintiffs new argument, their
Motion would still be unfounded. Plaintiffs fall to present any evidence in support of ·
their assertion that Defendants wilfuily failed to pay overtime.
2Piaintiffs also urge me to consider (which l have} the affidavits of those Plaintiffs
_ who have not been involved in firing of any chicken catchers. (D.l. 57 at il 15.) Even if
not all Plaintiffs have tired catchers, involvement in tiring is not thestandard by which to
determine whether an employee is exempt. See 29 C.F.R. § 541 .i 00(a}(4).
P
i Case 1 :04-cv—00414-SLR Document 119-2 Filed 07/30/2008 P-age 4 of 4
. reconsideration of my earlier opinion is not warranted because the outcome would not
change. - ·
Plaintiffs further cite to deposition testimony of It/lr. Walters "who stated
repeatedly that as a crew leader, he has no input as to who gets hired." (D.l. 5? at ii _
8.) While Mr- Walters did not concede having suggested anybody for hire, he “i_nforrned
[Mr. Drummond} ofthe 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 Drurnmond, who worked for Walters at the time the .
deposition was taken, inquired of Walters how to get a job with Defendants. (D.l. 45, I
Ex. 29 at 692-93.) Thus, the record supports that ll/lr. Walters was involved in getting
Drummond hired.
Plaintiffs, with both arguments, have failed to meet the legal standard- for
reargu ment and, therefore, their motion must be denied. Accordingly, IT iS HEREBY
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reargument (Di. 5?) is DENIED.
; T i`
hl 1-E n
UN TE STATES n · T JUDGE
July 29, 2005 ‘ ` W
Wilmington, Delaware -
4
Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR
Document 119-2
Filed 07/30/2008
Page 1 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR
Document 119-2
Filed 07/30/2008
Page 2 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR
Document 119-2
Filed 07/30/2008
Page 3 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR
Document 119-2
Filed 07/30/2008
Page 4 of 4
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms