United States District Court, D. Colorado
MICHELE KENNETT, individually and on behalf of the Proposed Colorado Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff,
v.
BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 23 AND STIPULATION AS TO
MONETARY RELIEF
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Michele Kennett's
Uncontested Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Stipulation as to
Monetary Relief (for purposes of this Order, the
“Motion”). (Doc. # 110.) For the reasons detailed
below, Plaintiff's Motion is granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
Court's previous Orders provide detailed recitations of
the factual and procedural background of this case and are
incorporated herein. See (Doc. ## 49, 65.) The
procedural background of this litigation will be reiterated
here only to the extent necessary to address Plaintiff's
Motion.
Plaintiff
initiated this action in 2014 on her own behalf and on behalf
of a proposed class of hourly home health care workers
employed by Defendant Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. in
Colorado. (Doc. # 1.) She alleges Defendant violated
Colorado's wage and hour laws and seeks unpaid overtime
wages. (Id.) Defendant has long argued that
Plaintiff and members of the proposed class constituted
“companions” and were therefore expressly
excluded from the minimum wage and overtime obligations of
the Colorado Wage Act and related orders, consistent with the
Fair Labor Standards Act. (Doc. # 10 at 10.)
Pursuant
to the Court's scheduling order, see (Doc. # 17
at 7), the action has proceeded in two stages. The first
phase has focused on Defendant's companion exemption
defense. (Id.) In February 2015, the parties filed
separate Motions for Summary Judgment on Defendant's
companion exemption defense. (Doc. ## 30, 31.) On September
24, 2015, this Court concluded that Defendant's companion
exemption defense was inapplicable and that Plaintiff was not
barred from overtime pay under Colorado's statutes and
regulations. (Doc. # 49.) It therefore denied Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Plaintiff's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Id.)
Defendant
subsequently filed and this Court denied its Motion for
Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to Certify the
Court's September 24, 2015, Order for Interlocutory
Appeal. (Doc. ## 53, 65.) In February 2016, Defendant filed a
Motion for Certification of a Question of Law to the Colorado
Supreme Court (Doc. # 66), and on May 31, 2016, this Court
certified Defendant's question to the Colorado Supreme
Court and stayed this action (Doc. # 74). The Colorado
Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question on
June 16, 2016 (Doc. # 79), concluding the first phase of the
litigation.
The
second phase of litigation has focused on class certification
and damages. See (Doc. # 17 at 7.) The parties
engaged in negotiations after the Colorado Supreme Court
declined to address the certified question. Because Defendant
asserted its intent to appeal the Court's conclusion as
to Defendant's companion exemption defense to the Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the parties did not reach a
settlement agreement. The parties did, however, agree to an
amended scheduling order in which they would conduct
discovery on class certification and damages and then
stipulate to class certification and to a judgment on
damages. (Doc. # 96.) Plaintiff would then file a motion for
attorneys' fees and costs, and Defendant would file a
Notice of Appeal. (Id.) The Court entered this
Amended Scheduling Order on October 25, 2016. (Doc. # 98.)
Over the course of several months, the parties exchanged
information and engaged in good faith discussions to reach a
stipulation. See (Doc. # 110-1 at 5-8.)
The
parties have now reached a stipulation concerning the amount
of damages owed to Plaintiff and the members of the putative
class, including prejudgment interest.
(Id.
at 8.) Plaintiff describes in the Motion presently before the
Court:
The parties agree that the putative class is owed $282,
273.87 of overtime pay for the two-year class period at
issue, and prejudgment interest of $109, 889.29.
Attorneys' fees will be addressed following the
Court's entry of Judgment, as contemplated in . . . the
Amended Scheduling Order dated October 25, 2016. Additional
attorneys' fees and post-judgment interest will be
addressed, if necessary, after the conclusion of
[Defendant's] appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
(Id. at 8-9.)
In
accordance with the parties' agreement, Plaintiff seeks
to certify the following class pursuant to Rule 23:
“All individuals who are or have been employed by
Defendant as hourly paid home health care workers in Colorado
from July 21, 2012, through November 15, 2015.” (Doc. #
110 at 1.) Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint Plaintiff
Michele Kennett as class representative and Rachhana T. Srey
and Robert L. Schug of Nichols Kaster, PLLP as class counsel
and to approve the parties' proposed notice to the class.
See (Doc. # 110-1 at 13-14; Doc. # 110-6 at 1.) Plaintiff
represents that Defendant does not contest these requests,
see (Doc. # 110), and Defendant has not responded to
Plaintiff's Motion.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
When
addressing class certification, the district court undertakes
a “rigorous analysis” to satisfy itself that the
prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are met.
CGC Holding Co., LLC v. Broad & Cassel, 773 F.3d
1076, 1086 (10th Cir. 2014). Under Rule 23(a), plaintiffs
seeking class certification bear the burden of establishing
four threshold requirements:
(1) “the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable”;
(2) “there are questions of law or fact that are common
to the class”;
(3) “the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class”; and
(4) “the representative parties will fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class.”
Id.
Plaintiffs
must also show that the case falls into one of the three
categories set forth in Rule 23(b). Trevizo v.
Adams, 455 F.3d 1155, 1161-62 (10th Cir. 2006);
Shook v. El Paso Cty., 386 F.3d 963, 971 (10th Cir.
2004). In this case, Plaintiff moves for class certification
under Rules 23(b)(2). (Doc. # 110-1 at 12-13.) Certification
is available under Rule 23(b)(3) where “questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members, and . . . a
...