Hobbs v. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc.

Background

Tavares Hobbs, Ricardo Bell, and Robert Shaw brought a proposed class action against Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. and Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, alleging violations of New York labor laws. The plaintiffs alleged that Swift did not pay drivers for off-duty time and time spent resting in truck sleeper berths. The proposed classes covered drivers based at Swift locations in Johnstown and Amsterdam, drivers based at the Syracuse location who logged sleeper-berth or off-duty time in New York, and drivers based outside New York who made pickups or deliveries in New York and logged sleeper-berth time there.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The defendants moved to deny certification. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended denying the plaintiffs’ motion because they had not established “numerosity”—the requirement that a proposed class be so large that joining every member individually would be impractical. He recommended denying the defendants’ motion as moot. The plaintiffs objected and requested limited additional discovery concerning the number of potential class members. The defendants objected to allowing another certification motion and argued that the denial should be final.

Court’s analysis

The court agreed that the plaintiffs had not shown numerosity for any of the three proposed classes. The plaintiffs had not presented class-by-class evidence before the magistrate judge. Their later estimates relied on assumptions about the number of drivers, the locations from which drivers operated, and the likelihood that drivers logged sleeper-berth time in New York. The court found those assumptions speculative and not supported by the record.

The court also agreed that declarations from 30 witnesses did not establish numerosity. Three declarants were not drivers, the remaining 27 drivers were not all members of the same proposed class, and the plaintiffs did not provide evidence showing whether those drivers logged sleeper-berth time relevant to the proposed classes. The plaintiffs also had not identified a specific discovery request seeking the relevant information or moved to compel the discovery they claimed Swift had withheld.

The court noted that the magistrate judge had identified one proposed common issue based on a New York regulation that was no longer valid because its authorizing statute had been repealed. The plaintiffs did not object to that conclusion and said they would not continue relying on that ground. The court adopted that ruling, while recognizing that other possible common issues concerning payment for sleeper-berth time and Swift’s policies might warrant further consideration if the plaintiffs renewed their motion.

Ruling and disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full but modified it to clarify that the denial of class certification was without prejudice. It permitted the plaintiffs to conduct very limited, targeted discovery concerning numerosity, under Magistrate Judge Aaron’s supervision, and then to renew their motion for class certification one more time. The court rejected the defendants’ objections seeking a final denial, restrictions on a renewed motion, or a ruling that plaintiffs’ counsel was inadequate. It directed that any renewed certification motion be made to the magistrate judge and terminated the pending motions at ECF Nos. 67 and 71.