Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Law Offices Of Monika Sud Devaraj x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Labor: Fair Standards | Massachusetts
Notice of Hearing
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing.
This hearing will be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the courtroom deputy of the session as soon as possible.
Audio access to the hearing may be available to the media and public. Please check the Court schedule. In order to gain access to the hearing, you must sign up at the following address: https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html.
For questions regarding access to hearings, you may refer to the general orders and public notices of the Court available on www.mad.uscourts.gov or contact the session here.
Order
District Judge Margaret R. Guzman: ELECTRONIC SHOW CAUSE ORDER entered. "It is elementary that without personal jurisdiction, a court is without power to adjudicate a claim or obligation of a person, and any judgment or order so rendered is null and void." Carta v. Town of Fairfield, 959 F.2d 230 (1st Cir. 1992) (citing General Contracting & Trading Co. v. Interpole Inc., 899 F.2d 109, 114 (1st Cir. 1990)). But even where a district court lacks personal jurisdiction over a party in a case, under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the court may transfer a case to another district to cure a lack of jurisdiction.Doe # 1 v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 20-CV-11623-ADB, 2021 WL 3375107, at *7 (D. Mass. Aug. 3, 2021) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1631).Following the Ninth Circuit's decision in Harrington v. Cracker Barrel, and given that the District of Arizona court lacked personal jurisdiction over the non-Arizona plaintiffs in this case, this Court is inclined to find that the prior orders issued by the Arizona court have been rendered null and void, although the transfer of the case to this Court was proper. See Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 142 F.4th 678, 687 (9th Cir. 2025), cert. denied sub nom. Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 224 L. Ed. 2d 6 (Feb. 23, 2026), and cert. denied, 224 L. Ed. 2d 6 (Feb. 23, 2026). Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to file a memorandum addressing what the next steps in this case should be and what issues this Court should be considering in managing this case. The parties should consider whether motions for relief from void orders under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4) must be made. The parties should discuss in their memorandum how the tolling of the statute of limitations would be affected if the Arizona court's grant of conditional class certification is voided, and whether any equitable tolling provisions would apply that would cause this Court to apply the claim cut-off dates contemplated by the Arizona court's prior rulings (notwithstanding the later finding of lack of personal jurisdiction). The parties are also invited to raise any other issues that they believe are pertinent at this stage. Finally, the parties should consider the hypothetical situation where this Court adopts the reasoning from the prior Arizona rulings relating to the motion to dismiss, arbitrability, and conditional certification and whether, in such a scenario, either party would stipulate to the holdings of those prior orders. The memorandum should not exceed 10-15 double spaced pages and shall be due 07/20/2026. The Court shall schedule a status conference to discuss the briefing. The parties should be prepared to answer the following questions at the status: (1) has notice been published?; (2) how many opt-in plaintiffs exist now?; (3) did the Defendant provide discovery about the contact information for putative class members?; (4) do the parties presently have enough information to determine whether any putative class member is subject to a binding arbitration agreement? (LB)
Following the Ninth Circuit's decision in Harrington v. Cracker Barrel, and given that the District of Arizona court lacked personal jurisdiction over the non-Arizona plaintiffs in this case, this Court is inclined to find that the prior orders issued by the Arizona court have been rendered null and void, although the transfer of the case to this Court was proper. See Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 142 F.4th 678, 687 (9th Cir. 2025), cert. denied sub nom. Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 224 L. Ed. 2d 6 (Feb. 23, 2026), and cert. denied, 224 L. Ed. 2d 6 (Feb. 23, 2026). Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to file a memorandum addressing what the next steps in this case should be and what issues this Court should be considering in managing this case. The parties should consider whether motions for relief from void orders under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4) must be made. The parties should discuss in their memorandum how the tolling of the statute of limitations would be affected if the Arizona court's grant of conditional class certification is voided, and whether any equitable tolling provisions would apply that would cause this Court to apply the claim cut-off dates contemplated by the Arizona court's prior rulings (notwithstanding the later finding of lack of personal jurisdiction). The parties are also invited to raise any other issues that they believe are pertinent at this stage. Finally, the parties should consider the hypothetical situation where this Court adopts the reasoning from the prior Arizona rulings relating to the motion to dismiss, arbitrability, and conditional certification and whether, in such a scenario, either party would stipulate to the holdings of those prior orders. The memorandum should not exceed 10-15 double spaced pages and shall be due 07/20/2026. The Court shall schedule a status conference to discuss the briefing. The parties should be prepared to answer the following questions at the status: (1) has notice been published?; (2) how many opt-in plaintiffs exist now?; (3) did the Defendant provide discovery about the contact information for putative class members?; (4) do the parties presently have enough information to determine whether any putative class member is subject to a binding arbitration agreement? (LB)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.