Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kenney v. Helix TCS, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

February 5, 2018

ROBERT KENNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
HELIX TCS, INC., Defendant.

         Judge Christine M. Arguello

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

          CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Robert Kenney's Motion for Equitable Tolling (Doc. # 42) and Defendant Helix TCS, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. # 54.) For the reasons discussed here, the Court grants both motions.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Court's previous Orders provide detailed recitations of the factual background of this case and are incorporated herein. See (Doc. ## 39, 49.) The lengthy procedural history of this case will thus be reiterated here only to the extent necessary to address the instant Motions.

         Defendant provides security and compliance services to businesses in Colorado's marijuana industry. (Doc. # 13 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant willfully failed to pay him and other security guards employed by Defendant overtime wages. (Doc.#1.) Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant on July 20, 2017. (Id.) He asserts a single claim against Defendant under the collective action provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (Doc. # 1.)

         Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on September 13, 2017. (Doc. # 13.) Defendant argued that Plaintiff is not entitled to the FLSA's protections because he worked in an industry-recreational marijuana-proscribed by federal law, and that accordingly, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's claim for want of jurisdiction. (Id. at 4-13.) Plaintiff timely objected to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. #28.)

         On October 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Expedited Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members. (Doc. # 29.) Pursuant to the FLSA's collective action provision, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff asked the Court to conditionally certify a class of security guards employed by Defendant in the past three years who were not paid overtime compensation and to issue his proposed notice and consent forms. (Id. at 15.) Defendant responded to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification by filing its Motion to Strike on October 20, 2017. (Doc. # 33.) Defendant asked the Court to strike Plaintiff's certification motion until it resolved Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Id. at 3.)

         The Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on January 5, 2018. (Doc. # 29.) The Court explained that numerous authorities expressly rejected Defendant's theory of jurisdiction. (Id.) Case law is clear, the Court described, that employers are not excused from complying with federal laws, such as the FLSA, solely because their business violates federal law. (Id.) The Court denied as moot Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's certification motion three days later. (Doc. # 40.) It ordered Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Expedited Motion for Conditional Certification on or before January 22, 2018. (Id.) Defendant responded to Plaintiff's certification motion in accordance with the Court's order. (Doc. # 48.)

         Plaintiff filed a Motion for Equitable Tolling on January 9, 2018. (Doc. # 42.) Plaintiff asks the Court to equitably toll the FLSA's statute of limitations for all potential opt-in class members "from the date [Defendant] filed its frivolous Motion to Dismiss (September 13, 2017) to the date the Court authorizes the provision of notice to potential class members or issues an order denying conditional certification." (Id. at 2.) Defendant timely responded in opposition. (Doc. # 52.)

         On January 15, 2018, Defendant filed its Motion for Certification for Appeal of the Court's Order Denying its Motion to Dismiss.[1] (Doc. #43.) Defendant requested that the Court certify its previous Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 29) for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). (Id.) The Court granted Defendant's Motion for Certification for Appeal on January 23, 2018. (Doc. # 49.) The Court concluded that its Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss involves "a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation" and is therefore appropriate for interlocutory appeal. (Id.) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)). Defendant filed a petition for permission to appeal with the Tenth Circuit on February 1, 2018. See (Doc. # 53.)

         Also on February 1, 2018, Defendant filed with this Court its Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Interlocutory Appeal. (Doc. # 54.)

         Thus, the two motions now pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Equitable Tolling (Doc. # 42), and (2) Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. # 54).

         II. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.