IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
______________________________________
)
MATTHEW MEDDER, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, ) No. 21-2325
)
v. ) Filed: June 27, 2022
)
THE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on December 22, 2021, asserting claims individually and,
as to one count, on behalf of a proposed collective of other similarly situated employees. Pls.’
Compl., ECF No. 1. After Defendant moved to dismiss, Def’s Mot. to Dismiss Pls.’ Compl., ECF
No. 7, Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on March 15, 2022, see Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ECF
No. 8. The Amended Complaint raises three claims: the first two claims allege that Defendant
failed to provide hazard duty and environmental differential pay, while the third claim alleges that
Defendant failed to properly calculate and pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”). See id. ¶¶ 92–120.
On May 16, 2022, both parties filed substantive motions: Defendant moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court
of Federal Claims, and Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a collective action as to
their overtime claim under the FLSA. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ECF
No. 10; Pls.’ Mot. to Conditionally Certify Collective Action, ECF No. 11. Defendant then moved
to stay briefing of Plaintiffs’ motion pending resolution of its Motion to Dismiss, which seeks
dismissal of all of Plaintiffs’ claims including their claim under the FLSA. Def.’s Mot. for a Stay
Pending Resolution of its Mot. to Dismiss at 2–3, ECF No. 12. Defendant argues that a stay is the
more economical and efficient approach for both the Court and the parties because even if the
Court only partially grants Defendant’s motion it would affect the composition of Plaintiffs’
proposed collective. This would in turn alter “the contours of discovery related to the collective
action, the content of any notice, and to whom the notice would be sent.” Id. at 3. Plaintiffs oppose
Defendant’s stay request. They stress that any delay to a conditional certification decision would
be detrimental because, given the nature of the FLSA, the claims of potential opt-in plaintiffs will
be extinguished or diminished by the statute of limitations with each passing day. Pls.’ Opp’n to
Def.’s Mot. for a Stay Pending Resolution of its Mot. to Dismiss at 4, ECF No. 13.
The Court agrees with Defendant. A trial court has “broad discretion” with respect to pre-
trial case management, including scheduling matters. See, e.g., Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ.
of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d
1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997)); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997) (citing
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)) (a trial court generally has “broad discretion to
stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket”). While the Court
appreciates Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the claims of absent putative opt-in plaintiffs, the Court
finds that resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss could significantly alter the scope and
content of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification or render it moot entirely. A temporary
stay may therefore conserve a significant amount of time and resources devoted to the issue. This
is a particularly compelling concern in this instance because Plaintiffs’ motion is substantial, so
far consisting of 33 pages of briefing and over 1,300 pages of exhibits. See ECF No. 11; App. to
Pls.’ Mot. to Conditionally Certify Collective Action, ECF No. 11-1. Other trial courts facing the
2
same question have elected to stay briefing on conditional certification while there is a pending
motion that presents threshold issues, such as whether the complaint states a viable claim or is
subject to arbitration. See, e.g., Longnecker v. Am. Exp. Co., No. 14-69, 2014 WL 1577522, at *2
(D. Ariz. Apr. 21, 2014); Cobble v. 20/20 Commc’ns, Inc., No. 17-53, 2017 WL 4544598 (E.D.
Tenn. Oct. 11, 2017); Clark v. Pizza Baker, Inc., No. 18-157, 2018 WL 2119309 (S.D. Ohio May
8, 2018); Ferrell v. SemGroup Corp., No. 19-610, 2020 WL 8836056 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 22, 2020).
As in those cases, the Court finds a stay appropriate and in the interest of judicial economy.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that, should the Court stay conditional
certification briefing, the statute of limitations as to absent potential class-members should be
tolled. ECF No. 13 at 5–7. As Defendant points out in its reply, this is now the third pending
motion in which the question of equitable tolling has been raised. Def.’s Reply in Supp. of its
Mot. for a Stay Pending Resolution of its Mot. to Dismiss at 3, ECF No. 14. In its dismissal
motion, Defendant argues that equitable tolling is not available at all under either this Court’s
statute of limitations or for FLSA claims. ECF No. 10 at 32. A ruling on equitable tolling in the
context of this procedural motion would therefore be both inappropriate and premature. See, e.g.,
Ferrell, 2020 WL 8836056, at *1. Plaintiffs may raise their equitable tolling arguments in response
to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which addresses this issue in depth. See ECF No. 10 at 32–41.
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion for a Stay Pending Resolution of its
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. Briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional
Certification is stayed pending further order of the Court.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 27, 2022 /s/ Kathryn C. Davis
KATHRYN C. DAVIS
Judge
3