ARTHUR D. SPATT, District Judge.
This case arises from allegations by the Plaintiff Michael Callari (the "Plaintiff") that the Defendants Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc. ("BPS"), Richard Blackman ("Blackman") and John Does # 1-10 (collectively, the "Defendants") improperly denied its inside sales representatives and assistant branch managers overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") §§ 650 et seq.
On December 19, 2013, the Court issued an order denying, in part, and granting, in part, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The order also granted the Plaintiff leave to file a motion to certify a collective action pursuant to the FLSA § 216(b) and a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P.") 23.
On April 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion to (i) conditionally certify a collective action pursuant to FLSA § 216(b) and (ii) certify a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for violations of NYLL §§ 650 et seq.
On November 20, 2014, the Court issued an order referring to United States Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson the portion of the Plaintiff's motion seeking to conditionally certify a collective action pursuant to FLSA § 216(b).
On March 27, 2015, the Judge Tomlinson granted the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
Presently before the Court is the portion of the Plaintiff's motion seeking to certify a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The Plaintiff was employed by BPS from May 1981 through July 15, 2010, when he retired. (Callari Decl. at ¶ 2.) He was originally hired as an "inside sales representative" in the Mineola Branch. (
In 1989, the Plaintiff was promoted to assistant branch manager of the Mineola Branch, a title that he held until the last day of his employment on July 15, 2010. (Callari Decl. at ¶ 4.)
The Plaintiff has also named John Does #1 to 10 as Defendants, claiming that they "at all relevant times were, officers, directors, and/or owners and/or one of the ten largest shareholders" of BPS. (Compl. at ¶ 12.)
The Defendant BPS is a company that sells plumbing, heating and cooling supplies from retail and wholesale stores and locations. (The December 19, 2013 Summary Judgment Order at 3.) BPS has twenty branches in the New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania area. (Cook Dep. Tr. 18:16.)
Blackman was the owner of BPS prior to his death on September 19, 2012. (Dkt. No. 27;
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of "all employees of the Defendants during the six years immediately preceding the initiation of this action up to the date of this decision, who performed work as inside sales persons and assistant managers." (The Pl.'s Mem. of Law at 1.)
BPS paid assistant branch managers a salary and classified them as executive employees exempt from overtime under the FLSA and NYLL. (Cook Dep. Tr. at 89:23-25.) From 1989 until his retirement on July 15, 2010, Plaintiff was an assistant branch manager and thus, pursuant to BPS's policy, was classified as an executive exempt from receiving overtime. (Callari Decl. at ¶ 11.) In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants did not properly classify him and other assistant branch managers as exempt executives because their primary job duties were the same as inside sales representatives and did not involve any significant managerial responsibilities. (Compl. at ¶ 20.) As the central issue in this case is the propriety of the Defendants' policy to allegedly deny assistant branch managers and inside sales representatives overtime compensation under the executive exemption, the Court will provide a brief background as to the applicable legal standards governing that exemption.
The FLSA § 207(a)(1) and NYCRR 142-2.2 require qualifying employers to compensate employees for hours worked in excess of forty hours per work week at a rate not less than one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay subject to certain exemptions. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a)(1), § 207(a)(1); N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, § 142-2.2. One category of employees exempt from the overtime requirement under FLSA § 213(a)(1) are employees who are employed in a "bona fide executive capacity."
The applicable Department of Labor regulations classify employees as "executives" if (1) they are "[c]ompensated on a salary basis"; (2) their "primary duty is management of the enterprise . . . or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof"; (3) they "customarily and regularly direct[] the work of two or more other employees"; and (4) they "ha[ve] the authority to hire or fire other employees or" if their "suggestions and recommendations" on personnel decisions "are given particular weight." 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(1)-(4). These same factors also govern whether an employee is an executive under the NYLL.
In 2009, an unidentified employee of BPS filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") Wage and Hour Division alleging that BPS had violated FLSA § 207
The DOL found violations in three different categories. First, the DOL found that "both salaried Inside Sales and HVAC Counter employees were expected to work one 4-hour uncompensated Saturday a month, in addition to their 40 hour workweek." (
Second, the DOL found BPS sometimes paid employees a "lump sum of $125 for each 4 hours of additional weekend work, regardless of the employee's salary." (
Third, the DOL found that BPS also offered employees "spiffs" or "push money" for overtime work. (
As a result of these findings, On March 11, 2009, BPS entered into a compliance agreement with the DOL (the "Compliance Agreement") pursuant to which it agreed to pay its employees backwages in the amount of $123,083.37 over a period of eighteen months. (
The DOL then offered employees settlement payments pursuant to a formula calculated on, among other things, the number of overtime hours worked as reflected in timecards, payroll records, and interviews. (Connolly Decl., Ex. H, at 2.) Employees who accepted the settlement payments were required to sign a WH-58 Form, which resulted in a waiver by the employee as to any claim for backwages under the FLSA. (Connolly Decl., Ex. F.)
On June 11, 2009, the DOL offered the Plaintiff a net amount of $1,719.44 for unpaid overtime work under the Compliance Agreement. (
On July 29, 2011, the Plaintiff commenced this action, on behalf of himself and all other
On September 28, 2012, George Ruggerio ("Ruggerio") opted-in as a plaintiff in the proposed collective action pursuant to FLSA § 216. (Dkt. No. 26.) In 1995, Ruggiero was hired by BPS as an inside sales representative at the Queens Village branch. (Ruggiero Decl. at ¶ 3.) In 2000, Ruggerio was promoted to the title of assistant branch manager. (
On June 24, 2013, the Court "so ordered" a stipulation by the parties to substitute Robert Manheimer ("Manheimer") and Robert A. Tepedino ("Tepedino"), as Co-Executors of the Estate of Blackman, as defendants in this action, in place and instead of Blackman.
Following the completion of discovery, on August 22, 2013, the Defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint.
On December 19, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum of Decision & Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. In particular, the Court granted the Defendants' motion with respect to the opt-in Plaintiff Ruggerio's FLSA claim because it found that he waived his right to join a collective action seeking back wages by signing the WH-58 Form and accepting payments under the Compliance Agreement. (The December 19, 2013 Summary Judgment Order at 25.) However, the Court found that Ruggerio could still pursue a NYLL claim. (
Further, the Court denied the Defendants' motion with respect to the Plaintiff, finding that there were triable issues of material fact as to whether the Plaintiff was exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements pursuant to the executive employee exemption and the administrative employee exemption. (
Finally, the Court rejected the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiff should be precluded from filing a motion to certify a collective and/or class action at that late stage of litigation. (
On January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the Court's December 19, 2013 Summary Judgment Order. On April 28, 2014, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion.
On April 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the present motion for certification seeking to certify a Rule 23 class action based on the alleged violation of NYLL § 650, et seq., and a collective action pursuant to FLSA § 216(b) consisting of "all employees of the Defendants during the six years immediately preceding the initiation of this action up to the date of this decision, who performed work as inside sales persons and assistant managers." (The Pl.'s Mem. of Law at 17.)
In the present motion, the Plaintiff argues that class treatment is appropriate here because (i) assistant branch managers and inside sales representatives shared similar duties and responsibilities; and (ii) they were all improperly classified as exempt from receiving overtime by BPS under the FLSA and NYLL because the primary duties of both inside sales representative
In support, the Plaintiff relies primarily on the deposition testimony of (i) Susan Cook ("Cook"), a BPS human resources administrator; (ii) Paul Monahan ("Monahan"), the branch manager at the Hicksville, Lynbrook, Huntington, and Mineola branches; and (iii) Edward Cuff ("Cuff"), who served as a branch manager at the Mineola and Huntington branches. He further relies on the DOL Compliance Agreement and the declarations filed by the Plaintiff and Ruggiero.
On June 5, 2014, the Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion, arguing that certification is inappropriate because the Plaintiff has failed to show that he, as a former assistant branch manager at the Mineola branch, is similarly situated to assistant branch managers at other BPS branches and inside sales representatives. (The Def.'s Mem. of Law at 1.) In so arguing, the Defendants point to other portions of the deposition testimony of Cook, Monahan, and Cuff, which they contend shows that the duties of assistant branch managers differed at every branch. (
On March 27, 2015, Judge Tomlinson granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to FLSA § 216(b). Judge Tomlinson found that the Plaintiff "has presented the requisite `modest factual showing' that Plaintiff and the putative optin class `were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law."" (March 27, 2015 Collective Certification Order at 12) (quoting
As Judge Tomlinson made clear in her order:
(
After reviewing the evidence submitted by the parties, and without resolving any factual disputes related to the duties of the assistant branch managers and inside sales representatives, Judge Tomlinson found that the Plaintiff "has presented the requisite modest factual showing that [the] Plaintiff and the putative opt-in class were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law." (
As is made clear below, the evidentiary standard required to meet the first step of conditional certification pursuant to FLSA § 216 is more lenient than the evidentiary standard required to meet the pre-requisites for certification of an opt-out class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Thus, Judge Tomlinson's decision to grant the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of an FLSA § 216(b) collective action does not affect this Court's analysis of whether the proposed class meets the Rule 23 requirements.
Rule 23(a) requires that all class actions satisfy the following requirements: "(1) numerosity (a `class [so large] that joinder of all members is impracticable'); (2) commonality (`questions of law or fact common to the class'); (3) typicality (named parties' claims or defenses `are typical . . . of the class'); and (4) adequacy of representation (representatives `will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class')."
Where, as here, a party seeks to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), a party must also show that (1) "[c]ommon questions . . . `predominate over any questions affecting only individual members'" and (2) class resolution must be "superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy."
The party seeking class certification bears the burden of proving compliance with each of Rule 23's requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that it need not reach the numerosity requirement as it finds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden with respect to the (i) commonality; (ii) typicality and adequacy of representation; and (iv) the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
Rule 23(a)(2) requires that the movant demonstrate that there are "questions of law or fact common to the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in
However, in
The Supreme Court further explained that in cases where an employee claims to have been denied a promotion on account of race or gender, the plaintiff will be able to show that such a question is "capable of classwide resolution" where (i) the employer "used a biased testing procedure to evaluate both applicants for employment and incumbent employees"; or (ii) "[s]ignificant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination[.]"
The Court noted that the first manner of proving the question of gender discrimination on a class-wide basis — a biased testing procedure — was not present in the case.
Further, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that a discriminatory policy on the part of Wal-Mart could be inferred on the basis of statistical disparities between the number of men and women employed at Wal-Mart or what the Court found to be weak anecdotal evidence of discrimination.
Here, the Plaintiff argues that commonality is satisfied because there are number of questions common to the proposed class:
(The Pl.'s Mem. of Law at 20.)
However, as
Therefore, the Court must determine whether any of the alleged questions identified by the Plaintiff are (i) in fact common to the class; and (ii) if so, whether they are capable of class wide resolution.
The Plaintiff has not provided any basis to believe that questions two through four — whether the Defendants required both inside sales representatives and assistant branch managers to work overtime; whether they did in fact work overtime; and whether the Defendants refused to pay them for such overtime — were to be common questions for assistant branch managers and inside sales representatives. In a report of its investigation into whether the BPS failed to pay employees overtime, the DOL found that BPS had a policy requiring "both salaried Inside Sales and HVAC Counter employees" to "work one 4-hour uncompensated Saturday a month, in addition to their 40 hour work week." (Connolly Decl., Ex. H at 2.) However, there is no evidence in the DOL report to suggest that this policy also applied to assistant branch managers.
In their declarations, the Plaintiff provides anecdotal evidence that he and Ruggiero, who were both assistant branch managers at the Mineola and Queen Village branches, worked more than forty hours per week. (Callari Decl. at ¶ 11.) However, the Supreme Court in
Therefore, the Court finds that the question of whether the class members worked in excess of forty hours per week would require the Court to make individual determinations with respect to each class member, and thus does not satisfy the commonality requirement.
With respect to questions five and six — whether the Defendant willfully failed to pay overtime to class members or made intentional misrepresentations to the DOL regarding the class members' overtime hours — as this Court noted in the December 19, 2013 Summary Judgment Order, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Defendants acted willfully. (
Therefore, the only potential common question raised by the Plaintiff is the first question — whether the Defendants properly classified class members as exempt from overtime requirements.
However, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Defendants classified both inside sales representatives and assistant branch members as "executives" exempt from overtime requirements. As stated above, employees are classified as exempt "executives" under the FLSA and NYLL if (a) they have as their "primary duty" the "management of the enterprise"; (b) "customarily and regularly" direct the work of two or more employees; and (c) have authority to hire and fire other employees, or make suggestions relating to hiring and firing that are given `particular weight.'" 29 C.F.R. § 541.100;
There is evidence in the record, and the Defendants appear to concede, that BPS had a policy whereby it classified assistant branch managers as exempt from overtime requirements. For example, Cook, the human resources administrator for BPS since 1987, testified that "assistant [branch] managers and managers were exempt from overtime." (Cook Dep. at Tr. 15:19; 89:23-25.)
However, the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that there was a similar policy whereby inside sales representatives were also classified as exempt from overtime. Indeed, when asked whether all inside sales representatives at Blackman Plumbing are "exempt from overtime," Cook responded, "no." (
The only evidence to the contrary are the declarations filed by the Plaintiff and opt-in Plaintiff Ruggiero in support of the present motion. In particular, the Plaintiff, who was an inside sales representative from 1981 through 1989, states that "[d]uring my nearly thirty years at Blackman and during the pendency of this law suit, I have learned that the Defendants also misclassified all assistant managers and inside sales personnel, as being exempt from receiving overtime compensation." (Callari Decl. at ¶ 8.) However, the Plaintiff does not explain on what basis he believes that inside sales personnel at BPS's nineteen other branches were classified as exempt from overtime.
Moreover, in his deposition testimony, when asked if and when he spoke to other employees about his belief that inside sales representatives and assistant branch managers were classified as exempt from overtime requirements, the Plaintiff testified that "he never spoke to anybody about it except when I asked if he wanted to join the suit, and Pat Montana." (Callari Dep. Tr. at 240:5-7.) When asked when he talked to Pat Montana, the Plaintiff stated, "about a month and a half ago." (
In light of the testimony of Cook, who was a human resources administrator familiar with BPS's payroll policies, and the Plaintiff's admitted lack of any personal knowledge as to the classification of inside sales representatives working at other BPS branches, the Court does not find the Plaintiff's assertion that BPS classified all inside sales representatives as exempt from overtime to be credible.
Similarly, opt-in Plaintiff Ruggiero, who was an inside sales representative at the Queens Village branch from 1995 through 2000 and an inside sales representative at the Mineola branch from 2002 through 2009, stated in his declaration, "During the entire time that I was employed by the Defendants, I was paid on a salaried basis and classified as exempt from receiving overtime pay for any hours that I worked in excess of forty hours, during any given work-week." (Ruggiero Decl. at ¶ 13.) However, as described above, the Court cannot infer that a policy existed based solely on Ruggiero's account, especially, where, as here, Cook testified on the basis of personal knowledge that inside sales personnel did receive overtime and were not classified as exempt. (Cook Dep. Tr. at 99:2.);
As the Plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of a unified policy exempting inside sales representatives from overtime, the Court finds that the question of whether the Defendant misclassified class members as exempt from overtime is not common to all of the proposed class members.
In sum, as the Plaintiff has failed to establish that any of the six questions that it identifies are either (i) common to both inside sales representatives and assistant branch managers; or (ii) subject to generalizable proof, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish commonality.
Even if the proposed class satisfied commonality, the Court finds that proposed class would still fail to satisfy the remaining Rule 23(a) requirements of typicality and adequacy of representation.
Rule 23(a)(3) requires that "the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Typicality is intended to "ensure that `maintenance of a class action is economical and [that] the named plaintiff's claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence.'"
This requirement is satisfied "when each class member's claim arises from the same course of events and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability."
`"[M]inor variations in the fact patterns underlying individual claims' does not defeat typicality."
In addition, Rule 23(a)(4) requires that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." The issue of whether the proposed class representative is subject to a unique defense is also relevant to whether he or she will be an adequate representative of the class.
In the present case, the Plaintiff, as a former assistant branch manager, seeks to represent a class consisting of BPS employees and former employees who have "performed work as inside sales person
The answer to that question is not a simple one. As stated previously, the applicable administrative regulations classify employees as "executives" if (1) they are "[c]ompensated on a salary basis"; (2) their "primary duty is management of the enterprise . . . or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof"; (3) they "customarily and regularly direct[] the work of two or more other employees"; and (4) they "ha[ve] the authority to hire or fire other employees or" if their "suggestions and recommendations" on personnel decisions "are given particular weight." 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(1)-(4);
Significantly, the "regulations require a court to `determine []' the `exempt or nonexempt status of any particular employee . . . on the basis of whether the employee's salary and duties meet the requirement of the regulations' defining `executive employees.'"
Despite the individualized inquiry normally required by a court to determine whether an employee qualifies as exempt from overtime, courts in this Circuit have found certification appropriate where there is evidence "tending to show that the plaintiffs' jobs were similar in ways material to the establishment of the exemption criteria."
For example, in
Similarly, in
By contrast, in the present case, there is no common policy or document that defines the job or responsibilities of both assistant branch managers and inside sales representatives. The Defendants provide a document that appears to set forth a job description for assistant branch managers created by Cook, the BPS human resources administrator. (Rose Decl., Ex. B.) However, this document does not purport to describe the role of inside sales representatives who are also a part of the proposed class. Further, Cook testified that job responsibilities of assistant branch managers were not defined by the document setting forth their job description; rather, it "would really be the branch manager's discretion as to what they may have needed an assistant manager to perform during the same course of a workday." (Cook Dep. Tr. at 61:16-20.) As the Court noted in
Moreover, the evidence in the record tends to suggest that the duties of inside sales representatives and assistant branch managers varied across BPS's twenty branches. The Plaintiff makes much of a statement by Cook in her deposition, "As far as I can recall, all assistant branch managers and managers are inside salespeople. Everybody sells." (Cook Dep. Tr. at 68:15-17.) At most, this statement can be read to suggest that assistant branch managers and branch managers also engaged in the selling of BPS's products. The statement does not provide an answer to the crucial question in determining whether an employee is a "bona fide executive" — whether sales-related tasks were the primary duties of assistant branch managers or whether management-related tasks were their primary duties. 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(1)-(4) (noting that the second factor in determining whether an employee is executive is whether his or her "primary duty is management of the enterprise . . . or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof"). Thus, the Court does not view this statement as persuasive evidence that the duties of assistant branch managers and inside sales representatives were consistent across all branches.
The Plaintiff also relies on the testimony of Monahan, who served as a branch manager of the Mineola and Huntington branches during the relevant period. He testified that when he supervised assistant branch managers, they typically performed 75 percent sales work and 25 percent management-related work. (Monahan Dep. Tr. 32:15-21; 40:7-42:15.) He further estimated that the inside sales representatives that he supervised spent 100 percent of their time doing sales work. (
Furthermore, Cuff, who was a branch manager of the Mineola and Huntington branches during the relevant period, testified that to his knowledge, the duties of assistant branch managers and inside sales representatives are "consistent through all Blackman's branches." (Cuff Dep. Tr. 77:11-14; 126:2-6.) Yet it is not clear what the basis of his knowledge is other than his experience supervising inside sales representatives and assistant branch managers at the Mineola and Huntington branches. For example, he did not reference any conversations he had with other branch managers and had no knowledge of any written list setting forth the duties of assistant branch managers and inside sales representatives. (
Finally, the Plaintiff relies on statements made in his own declaration and the statements made by opt-in Plaintiff Ruggierio attesting to the purported fact that the duties of assistant branch managers and inside sales representatives are similar across all branches. However, as described above, the Court does not find these declarations to be credible in light of the inconsistent deposition testimony of the Plaintiff and Ruggiero and the lack of personal knowledge on the part of either the Plaintiff or Ruggiero as to the duties of assistant branch managers and inside sales representative at other BPS branches.
The Court also notes that the Defendants attach to their memorandum nine declarations in which current assistant branch managers, in contravention of the declarations by the Plaintiff and Ruggiero, assert that they had significant managerial responsibilities. (
In any event, the Court concludes that the evidence discussed above tends to show that the duties of assistant branch managers were not defined pursuant to a general policy or consistent throughout BPS's twenty branches. Thus, the issue of whether assistant branch managers were properly classified as exempt from overtime would have to be determined on an employee-by-employee basis. Such individual determinations are precisely the kind of the determinations that render certification inappropriate.
Therefore the Court finds that the Plaintiff, as an assistant branch manager, to be an atypical and inadequate representative of the class members who are inside sales representatives and are not subject to the same exemption defense. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has also failed to meet its burden with respect to typicality and adequacy of representation.
Rule 23(b)(3) requires the movant to show that (1) "[c]ommon questions . . . `predominate over any questions affecting only individual members'" and (2) class resolution must be "superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy."
"Like the commonality inquiry, a court examining predominance must assess (1) the `elements of the claims and defenses to be litigated'; and (2) `whether generalized evidence could be offered to prove those elements on a class-wide basis or whether individualized proof will be needed to establish each class member's entitlement to relief.'"
As described above, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the Rule 23(a) requirement of commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Therefore, it follows that the proposed class also fails to meet the more demanding requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
In his reply memorandum in support of the present motion, the Plaintiff requests that "to the extent that [his] motion for conditional certification and notice is granted, but Rule 23 class certification is not granted," that he "be permitted to renew its motion for Rule 23 class certification after class discovery has been conducted." (The Pl.'s Reply Mem. of Law at 10.)
The Plaintiff offers no legal authority, or other basis, as to why the Court should permit the Plaintiff to renew its motion for certification after further discovery has been conducted in the FLSA § 216(b) collective action. The Court notes that this case is four years old and that the Plaintiff has had plenty of opportunities to engage in discovery in support of his Rule 23 motion. To give the Plaintiff a chance to re-file this motion after more discovery would be both unfair and prejudicial to the Defendants, especially, where, as here, the Plaintiff has offered no basis to believe that additional discovery would reveal any documents that would tend to support certification of a Rule 23 class action.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23 is denied.