Misra, et al. v. Credico (USA LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-061-17)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT SUCV2017-2731-BLS 2 KANIKA MISRA, CRAIG LEVINE, individually And on behalf of all others similarly situated , Plaintiffs vs. CREDICO (USA) LLC, DFW CONSULTANTS, INC., and JASON WARD Defendants MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT CREDICO (USA) LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY This putative class action alleges a failure to pay minimum wage and overtime in violation of G.L.c. 149 § 148 and G.L.c. 151 § 1B and a misclassification of plaintiffs as independent contractors in violation of G.L.c. 149 § 148B. The defendant, Credico (USA) LLC (Credico) is also a named defendant in two federal court actions filed in the Southern District of New York. Martin v. Sprint/United Management Co., Civ. A. No. 15-05237 (Martin) and Vasto v. Credico (USA) LLC, Civ. A. No. 15-09298 (Vasto). Both actions make fact allegations against Credico similar to the instant case, and the plaintiffs in this action, Kanika Misra and Craig Levine, affirmatively opted in to the Vasto action so as to be bound by its resolution. Both Vasto and Martin, however, are brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.., which differs in important respects from Massachusetts wage and hours laws. This action was originally filed in Norfolk Superior Court under docket number 1683-0951. On December 7, 2016, Credico moved to dismiss or in the alternative sought a stay on the grounds that the two earlier filed actions (handled by the same federal judge in New York) should proceed to resolution first. Defendant also sought a transfer to the Business Litigation Session, which plaintiffs opposed. Ultimately, the case was transferred on August 28, 2017, and the defendant’s motion was scheduled for hearing October 26, 2017. Before that hearing took place, the federal court in the Martin action had granted Credico’s motion for summary judgment. On October 27, 2017 (a day after the hearing before this Court on the instant motion), the federal court granted Credico’s motion for summary judgment in the Vasto action. Because Credico’s motion to dismiss or stay was premised on its position that this case should not go forward because these other actions were pending, the motion is now moot. When plaintiffs notified this Court of the Vasto decision, Credico responded that it intended to seek dismissal of this case based on a different argument – namely, that plaintiffs are barred from pursuing their Massachusetts claims on the grounds of collateral estoppel. Plaintiffs already raised this issue — and presented strong arguments as to why collateral estoppel does not bar this action – when they opposed […]