United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
NANCY MURILLO, et al.
v.
CORYELL COUNTY TRADESMEN, LLC, et al.
SECTION:
“G” (1)
ORDER
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this
litigation, Plaintiffs, comprised of more than 150
individuals hired to work on a construction and renovation
project located at 225 Baronne Street in New Orleans,
Louisiana, assert that Defendants did not pay overtime wages
or minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[1]
Plaintiffs also bring a cause of action under the Louisiana
Private Works Act.[2] On December 20, 2016, Defendant Ronald
Franks Construction Company, LLC (“RFC”) filed a
“Motion for Summary Judgment.”[3] On December 27,
2016, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Extend Submission
Date” requesting that the Court extend the submission
date for the pending motion for summary judgment until March
29, 2017.[4] Plaintiffs assert that the motion for
summary judgment relies on statements by RFC representatives
who Plaintiffs have requested to depose, but have not yet had
the opportunity to do so.[5] Plaintiffs aver that discovery has been
proceeding expeditiously, but that it would be prejudicial to
require Plaintiffs to respond to RFC's motion prior to
obtaining the relevant deposition discovery and reviewing
thousands of pages of transcripts and exhibits.[6] On December 27,
2016, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to RFC's motion for
summary judgment, arguing that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(d) allows the Court to delay consideration of
the motion for summary judgment to allow Plaintiffs
additional time to conduct the depositions.[7] Plaintiffs also
filed a “Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion
to Continue, ” asserting that the Court should consider
the motion to continue on an expedited basis before
considering the motion for summary judgment.[8]
Pursuant
to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a
nonmovant shows that “it cannot present facts essential
to justify its opposition” to a motion for summary
judgment, the Court may: “(1) defer considering the
motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or
declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other
appropriate order.” Rule 56(d) “provides a
mechanism for dealing with the problem of premature summary
judgment motions.”[9] Rule 56(d) “allows for further
discovery to safeguard non-moving parties from summary
judgment motions that they cannot adequately
oppose.”[10] “Such motions are broadly favored
and should be liberally granted.”[11]
In its
motion for summary judgment, RFC argues that Plaintiffs
cannot show that RFC was either their employer or was part of
an enterprise that employed the plaintiffs.[12] In support of
its motion, RFC cites extensively to the declaration of at
least one RFC representative, Jaime Franks.[13]In response,
Plaintiffs aver that they cannot properly oppose the motion
until they conduct additional discovery and are able to
depose RFC's representatives.[14] Therefore, because
Plaintiffs cannot adequately oppose the motion for summary
judgment until further discovery is conducted, the Court
finds that denial of the motion for summary judgment without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 56(d) is proper. The Court notes
that, pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, the
parties have until May 17, 2017, to complete discovery, and
any non-evidentiary pretrial motions must be filed in
sufficient time to permit hearing thereon no later than May
24, 2017.[15] Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56(d) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will deny
RFC's motion for summary judgment without prejudice to
allow the parties additional time to conduct discovery.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ronald Franks
Construction Company, LLC's "Motion for Summary
Judgment" is DENIED without prejudice pursuant to Rule
56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' "Motion to Extend
Submission Date" is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' "Motion for
Expedited Consideration of Motion to Continue" is DENIED
AS MOOT.
---------
Notes:
[1] Rec. Doc. 48; Rec. Doc. 52-1 at
1.
[2] Rec. Doc. 48 at 10.
[3] Rec. Doc. 221.
[4] Rec. Doc. 222.