5th Circuit Reverses Texas Judge Who Held Plaintiffs Firms in Contempt
The appeals panel said US District Judge Amos Mazzant had no authority to hold the firms Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Outten & Golden; and New Jersey's Green Savits in contempt in a labor case.
July 02, 2019 at 05:56 PM
3 minute read
A federal appeals panel on Tuesday voided a Texas trial judge's order that said three plaintiffs firms were in contempt for allegedly violating the nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of an Obama-era U.S. Labor Department rule.
U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas said the firms—Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Outten & Golden, and New Jersey's Green Savits—violated the injunction when they brought a wage-and-hour suit in New Jersey federal court. Mazzant's injunction, issued against the Labor Department, had earlier paused a rule that would have made millions of more workers eligible for overtime compensation.
“This appeal concerns the district court's extraordinary and concededly unprecedented use of the contempt power to dictate the legal arguments that a stranger to that court may advance in another federal court,” a Jenner & Block team argued on behalf of the plaintiffs firms in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last year.
The Fifth Circuit panel on Tuesday unanimously concluded Mazzant did not have authority to hold the firms, and their client, in contempt.
In the New Jersey court, the firms had sued Chipotle Mexican Grill in a private civil action. The suit, filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey state law alleged Mazzant's injunction had not stopped the effective date of the Labor Department overtime rule. The plaintiffs also argued they were not parties to the injunction.
Chipotle's lawyers at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Messner Reeves and Cantey Hanger urged Mazzant to hold the firms in contempt. The Sheppard Mullin team said the suit in New Jersey against Chipotle represented a “dismissive attitude” toward Mazzant's injunction.
Mazzant determined the three law firms “acted in privity” with the Labor Department—that is, the firms and the agency, with interests aligned, were both bound by the injunction. The plaintiffs firms “sued to enforce the final rule in direct violation of the court's order,” Mazzant said. “In doing so, they recklessly disregarded a duty owed to the court—the long-standing and elementary duty to obey its orders, including a nationwide injunction.”
The appeals panel said Mazzant mistakenly concluded the firms were in “privity” with the Labor Department. The law firms “submitted uncontradicted declarations attesting that they had not in any way participated, coordinated, or acted in concert with the federal defendants” to violate Mazzant's injunction, the appeals court said.
More broadly, the appeals court said, “Chipotle's theory that the DOL represents every worker's legal interests through its enforcement of the FLSA so as to bind every worker in the United States to an injunction where the DOL is the only bound party lacks authoritative support.”
The court's ruling is posted below:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAmazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
5th Circuit Scrutinizes Under-21 Handgun Sales Ban Based on Supreme Court Test
Trending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250