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.

Meller v. Wings Over Spartanburg LLC

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

December 27, 2017

David Meller and Kerstin Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
Wings Over Spartanburg, LLC; Wings Over America, Inc.; Aetius Companies, LLC; Aetius Franchising, LLC.; Aetius Holdings, LLC; Aetius Restaurant Holdings, LLC; and Aetius Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendants.

          ORDER

          PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 79). For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs' motion is denied.

         BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This FLSA collective action arises out of Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants required servers at several Wild Wing Cafe restaurants to contribute to tip pools that were shared with employees who did not customarily and ordinarily receive tips. The Court approved the parties' consent motion to certify a class on June 13, 2016. After the close of the opt-in period, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on November 10, 2016. That stipulation dismissed the claims of ten opt-in plaintiffs whose consent forms were not timely submitted, including Miranda Daly and Tyler Boland. Approximately nine months later, Plaintiffs discovered that Daly and Boland's consent forms might have actually been timely submitted. As a result, Plaintiffs filed their motion for relief from that stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Rule 60(b) on October 12, 2017. Defendants responded on October 26, and Plaintiffs replied on October 31. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for consideration.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “In order to obtain relief under Rule 60(b) the moving party must ‘show (1) that the Rule 60(b) motion is timely; (2) that [the non-moving party] will not suffer unfair prejudice if the default judgement is set aside; and (3) that [the movant's defense] is meritorious.'” State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Murphy, No. 2:15-cv-4793-DCN, 2017 WL 4551488, at *2 (D.S.C. Oct. 12, 2017) (quoting Westlake Legal Grp. v. Yelp, Inc., 599 Fed.Appx. 481, 484 (4th Cir. 2015)). Additionally, “[w]hen a moving party seeks relief under the catch-all provision of subsection (b)(6), he must also show the existence of ‘extraordinary circumstances.'” Id. (quoting Murchison v. Astrue, 466 Fed.Appx. 225, 229 (4th Cir. 2012)). “Extraordinary ...


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.