Sutton v. CHSPSC, LLC, 1:16-cv-01318-STA-egb
| Decision Date | 05 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:16-cv-01318-STA-egb,1:16-cv-01318-STA-egb |
| Parties | STEPHEN SUTTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHSPSC, LLC, a/k/a Dyersburg Ambulatory Corp., f/k/a Community Health Systems Professional Services, KNOXVILLE HMA HOLDINGS, LLC, a/k/a Dyersburg Ambulatory Corp., d/b/a Tennova Healthcare, LLC, DYERSBURG HOSPITAL CORPORATION, a/k/a Tennova Healthcare - Dyersburg Regional, a/k/a Dyersburg Regional Medical Center, a/k/a Ambulance Service of Dyersburg, and AMBULANCE SERVICES OF DYERSBURG, INC., f/k/a Dyersburg Regional EMS, d/b/a Tennova EMS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 79), seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims. In this class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), Plaintiff, on behalf of himself as well as those similarly situated, seeks compensation for minimum-wage and overtime violations of the FLSA. Plaintiff also brings an individual retaliation claim under the FLSA. Defendants ask for summary judgment as to two of their number on the basis that those Defendants are not direct employers of Plaintiff or the class members. Defendants also seek summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims on the basis that the undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiff can sustain no minimum-wage violation, overtime violation, or prima facie case of retaliation. Defendants argue in the alternative as to the retaliation claim, that even if Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, Defendants have a legitimate, non-retaliatory basis for their actions, and Plaintiff cannot establish that such a basis was merely a pretext under the undisputed facts. The Court does not reach the issue of which Defendants employed Plaintiff because it finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish any of his claims. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. And Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED.
In their Responses to Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Facts (ECF No. 101), Defendants complained about Plaintiff's Response (ECF No. 95) to Defendants' Statement of Facts (ECF No. 82). Defendants first claim that Plaintiff has cited "to documents that are either not part of the record or Plaintiff[] do[es] not identify where they are part of the record." Defs.' Resps. to Pls.' Statement of Add'l Facts, at 1, Apr. 11, 2018, ECF No. 101. Defendants next complain that Plaintiff's Statement "is not 'concise' as required by Local Rule 56.1(b)." Id. at 2. As discussed below, the Court finds Defendants' complaints to be meritorious. But, even though Plaintiff makes no complaint in this regard against them, Defendants also seem to have trouble with brevity and omitting arguments from their responses. It seems to the Court that neither party has complied with the explicit instructions in Local Rule 56.1.
Local Rule 56.1(a) requires that any motion for summary judgment be "accompanied by a separate, concise statement of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue for trial." W.D. Tenn. R. 56.1(a) (emphasis added). Any party opposingsummary judgment must respond to each fact stated by the movant by agreeing that it is undisputed, agreeing that it is undisputed for purposes of ruling on the summary judgment motion only, or by demonstrating that the fact is disputed, with specific citations to the record. W.D. Tenn. R. 56.1(b). "Failure to respond to a moving party's statement of material facts . . . shall indicate that the asserted facts are not disputed for purposes of summary judgment." W.D. Tenn. R. 56.1(d). If a party responds but "fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact . . . the [C]ourt may consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) (emphasis added).
The purpose of a statement of facts is "to assist the Court in ascertaining whether there are any material facts in dispute." W.D. Tenn. R. 56.1(a) (emphasis added). A fact is material if the fact "might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under the governing substantive law." Baynes v. Cleland, 799 F.3d 600, 607 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Wiley v. United States, 20 F.3d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1994)). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). For purposes of summary judgment, a party asserting that a material fact is not genuinely in dispute must cite to particular parts of the record and show that the fact fails to establish a genuine dispute or that the adverse party has failed to produce admissible evidence to support the purported fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
As the non-moving party, Plaintiff was required to respond to Defendant's statements of fact "by either[] (1) agreeing that the fact is undisputed; (2) agreeing that the fact is undisputed for the purpose of ruling on the motion for summary judgment only; or (3) demonstrating that the fact is disputed." W.D. Tenn. R. 56.1(b). And when Plaintiff asserts that a genuine dispute of material fact exists, he must support his contention with a "specific citation to the record." W.D.Tenn. R. 56.1(b). Any party, however, may "object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).
If Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that a fact is disputed or fails to address Defendants' statement of facts properly or if Defendants fail to address Plaintiff's statement of additional facts properly, the Court will "consider the fact undisputed for purposes" of ruling on the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); see also W.D. Tenn. R. 56.1(d) ().
See Boyd v. Reed Landscaping, Inc., 2016 WL 5404765, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 26, 2016) (Brown, M.J.), rep. & rec. adopted in part, rejected in part, 2016 WL 5404642 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 27, 2016).
Defendants are correct that Plaintiff improperly supports its Responses with citations such as "ASD 28977" or "Sutton 000299" "without identifying whether ASD 28977 [or Sutton 000299] is part of the record." Defendants are also correct that Plaintiff's Response to their Statement of Facts is replete with improper argument. But Defendants are not innocent in thisregard either.1 And the Court would add to Defendants' complaints that Plaintiff substantively repeats a number of Defendants' factual statements in his Statement of Additional Facts. As this Court stated in a previous case, "[a]rgument in responses to statements of material facts clouds issues." Maverick Grp. Mktg., Inc. v. Worx Envtl. Products, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 3d 822, 827 (W.D. Tenn. 2015).
To the extent that Plaintiff has presented any facts in his Response that are not material to the issues presented by Defendants' Motion, not supported by proper citations to the record, or contain improper arguments, the Court will disregard those facts except as necessary to provide context or background. C.f. Hillman v. Shelby Cty., 2012 WL 681778, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 29, 2012) (). The Court will do likewise with Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Facts since Defendants also have failed to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 56.1 by including argument and extraneous material in its responses.
The Court is sympathetic to the onerous task that counsel has in preparing for these motions. But if the purpose of statements of facts is to assist the Court, counsel must prepare statements consistent with that purpose.
The Court has concluded that the following material facts are undisputed by the parties. As indicated in Part I of this Section of the Court's Order, a number of the parties' purported factual disputes have been disregarded by the Court for the parties' failure to comply with LocalRule 56.1. The Court has also omitted additional facts raised by one or both parties immaterial to the issues resolved in the present Order.2 Any remaining factual disputes are immaterial to the resolution of Plaintiff's claims.
Defendants in this case are CHSPSC, LLC, Knoxville HMA Holdings, LLC, Dyersburg Hospital Corporation, and Ambulance Services of Dyersburg, Inc. Plaintiff Stephen Sutton has filed suit on behalf of himself and other emergency medical technicians or paramedics employed by Defendants. Plaintiff and the class members provide emergency services to patients in the West Tennessee area—primarily Dyer County, Tennessee.
A paramedic assigned to a 24-hour shift was considered on the clock from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., earning for...
To continue reading
Request your trial