IN RE: DIRECTV, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: DIRECTV, INC., FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION MDL No. 2594
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in eleven actions move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize*
pretrial proceedings in this litigation in any convenient, accessible district. Plaintiffs suggest in a
footnote to their motion that the Central District of California or the District of Colorado would be
acceptable transferee forums; in a later filing, plaintiffs also suggest, without elaboration, the
Northern District of Illinois be selected as the transferee forum. Defendants DIRECTV, Inc., and
DIRECTV, LLC (collectively DIRECTV), DirectSat USA, LLC, DTV Home Services II, LLC,1
MasTec North America, Inc., and Multiband Corp. oppose centralization. This litigation currently
consists of eleven actions, pending in ten districts, as listed on Schedule A.2
Plaintiffs are technicians who installed or repaired DIRECTV’s satellite television
equipment. Plaintiffs generally allege that DIRECTV wrongly classified them as independent
contractors of subordinate intermediaries to avoid the reach of federal and state wage and hour laws.
Plaintiffs describe this business practice as a “fissured employment” scheme. Plaintiffs state that3
DIRECTV formed and controlled its provider network through similar provider agreements with
companies known as Home Service Providers (HSPs). DIRECTV and certain HSPs are defendants
in the actions, though not every HSP is a defendant in every action. Plaintiffs contend that they were
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this matter.*
In early November 2014, DirectSat USA, LLC, and affiliated companies filed for Chapter1
11 bankruptcy. On January 13, 2015, DirectSat emerged from bankruptcy and the automatic stay
was lifted.
The parties have notified the Panel of the pendency of 30 additional, potentially related2
actions.
According to plaintiffs, fissured employment describes the practice of a large company3
attempting to shed its role as a direct employer and purporting to disassociate itself from the workers
responsible for its services and products (albeit maintaining tight control over the method, manner,
quantity, and quality of production).
Case MDL No. 2594 Document 51 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 4

-2-
paid on a per-task basis that did not properly compensate them for their hours worked and overtime
wages. Plaintiffs bring their claims on an individual basis only and seek to hold DIRECTV and4
other HSP defendants liable as “joint employers” under various state wage and hour laws and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that Section 1407
centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions do involve questions of fact as to the classification
of DIRECTV service and installation technicians as independent contractors, as well as questions
about whether DIRECTV and the provider network defendants are joint employers of the plaintiffs
under the FLSA and the propriety of the allegedly uniform piece-rate pay system under which
plaintiffs were paid. Plaintiffs state that they expect a total of 45 cases encompassing the claims of
approximately 474 plaintiffs.
Despite the overlap in plaintiffs’ allegations and the number of pending cases, we are not
convinced that centralization will deliver significant benefits in terms of enhancing the efficient
conduct of these actions or convenience to the parties. The issue of whether an individual is an
employee or an independent contractor involves multiple factors, which require individualized
inquiry. The motion practice directed to the individual claims of nearly 500 plaintiffs, which
implicate over 30 state laws, very well could overwhelm a single judge. Plaintiffs worked for
potentially hundreds of subcontracting entities, which plaintiffs characterize as fly-by-night
operations, and inquiry into those non-parties may prove complicated and require significant
localized discovery efforts. Denying centralization will keep the actions pending in the state where5
plaintiffs worked and where, presumably, relevant witnesses and documents may be found.
Moreover, many of these same plaintiffs, through the same counsel, brought similar claims
against DIRECTV in a collective action that was voluntarily decertified in 2013. According to the6
Plaintiffs allege that they performed a number of other duties for defendants besides the4
tasks defendants designated as compensable. Further, plaintiffs allege that they were subjected to
“chargebacks” or deductions from their pay for problems arising after installations that were often
out of plaintiffs’ control.
See In re: CVS Caremark Corp. Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices Litig., 684 F. Supp. 2d 1377,5
79 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (discussing three broad circumstances in which centralization wage and hour
litigation is less compelling: (1) when the duties of the subject employees appear subject to
significant local variances or would entail significant localized discovery; (2) when the defendants
and/or some of the plaintiffs oppose centralization; and (3) when only a few actions or procedurally
dissimilar actions are involved in the litigation).
See Lang, et al. v. DirecTV, Inc., et al., C.A. No 10-1085 (E.D. Louisiana, filed April 9,6
2010).
Case MDL No. 2594 Document 51 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 4

-3-
parties own account in that case, substantial discovery took place. Even if these actions require7
further common discovery of DIRECTV and certain higher-level HSPs, centralization is not
necessary. This litigation may grow to 45 actions, but plaintiffs and defendants across the actions
are represented by common counsel. Where so few counsel are involved, discovery should be
coordinated by the parties efficiently without centralization. Defendants appear willing to litigate
these actions in a state-by-state manner, and we encourage the parties to undertake various
alternatives to transfer, such as allowing discovery already produced in prior actions to be used in
the present actions, to minimize any risk of inconsistent rulings or duplicative discovery. See, e.g.,
In re: Yellow Brass Plumbing Component Prods. Liability Litig., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1378
(J.P.M.L. 2012); see also MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION, FOURTH, § 20.14 (2004).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor
Catherine D. Perry
“The parties have conducted extensive discovery in this matter, including, but not limited7
to, taking dozens of depositions, issuing third-party subpoenas, developing and exchanging a
comprehensive plaintiff questionnaire, responding to written discovery, and producing tens of
thousands of pages of material (in addition to millions of lines of data). The parties have also
exchanged expert reports and are in the process of taking expert depositions and exchanging
supplemental reports.” Lang, doc. 466 at 2-3 (Aug. 30, 2013).
Case MDL No. 2594 Document 51 Filed 02/06/15 Page 3 of 4

IN RE: DIRECTV, INC., FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION MDL No. 2594
SCHEDULE A
Central District of California
JONES, ET AL. v. DIRECTV, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:13!08108
ADDISION, ET AL. v. DIRECTV, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:13!08109
District of Colorado
SAIS v. DIRECTV, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14!02050
District of Connecticut
GRETTLER, ET AL. v. DIRECTV, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14!01052
Northern District of Illinois
ANAYA, ET AL. v. DIRECTV, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14!05703
District of Maryland
HALL, ET AL. v. DIRECTV, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14!02355
District of Minnesota
SCHMIDT, ET AL. v. DIRECTV, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:14!03000
District of New Jersey
DEMARCO, ET AL. v. DIRECTV, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14!04623
Southern District of New York
MULLINGS, ET AL. v. DIRECTV, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14!05743
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
FIELDS, ET AL. v. DIRECTV, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14!04427
Eastern District of Wisconsin
MCCAFFERY, ET AL. v. DIRECTV, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14!00877
Case MDL No. 2594 Document 51 Filed 02/06/15 Page 4 of 4