Rhodes v. West Shore Home, LLC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROCHELLE RHODES, individually, 	: Civil No. 1:25-CV-1906
and on behalf of all others similarly 	:
situated, 	:
:
Plaintiffs, 	: (Judge Neary)
:
v. 	:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
WEST SHORE HOME, LLC, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
ORDER
The background of this order is as follows:
The plaintiff, Rochelle Rhodes, filed this Fair Labor Standards Act
action on October 10, 2025, and filed an amended collective and class
action complaint on December 23, 2025.1 	The matter has been referred
to the undersigned to conduct a settlement conference with the parties,
which is scheduled for Friday, February 13, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. at the
Sylvia H. Rambo U.S. Courthouse in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 	In our
1 Docs. 1, 25.
Case 1:25-cv-01906-KMN Document 33 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 4

2
scheduling order, we directed that “[a]ll counsel and named parties shall
participate in the conference in-person.”2
The named plaintiff, who resides in North Carolina, has filed a
motion for leave to appear at this conference remotely, asserting that
permitting her virtual participation will “promote efficiency, reduce
unnecessary travel-related burden and expense, and will not prejudice
Defendant or interfere with the Court’s management of the settlement
conference.”3 	The defendant opposes the plaintiff’s motion, arguing that
she has not shown good cause to permit her virtual appearance. 4
The Local Rules of this court provide that “[p]arties may be required
to attend and participate during the settlement session at the discretion
of the settlement officer.” 5 	While the Rules governing conference with a
Settlement Officer do not specifically provide for requests to be excused,
Rule 16.8.7(d) requires parties engaged in the court’s mediation program
to show “that personal attendance would impose an extraordinary or
2 Doc. 21 at 1.
3 Doc. 29 ¶ 8.
4 Doc. 32.
5 M.D. Pa. L.R. 16.9.4(a).
Case 1:25-cv-01906-KMN Document 33 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 4

3
otherwise unjustifiable hardship[]” in order to be excused from in-person
attendance. 	We find this Rule instructive. 	The plaintiff chose to file
her lawsuit in this forum, and she should reasonably have known that
her choice of forum would require her to periodically participate in
proceedings here, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 6 	The expense
and inconvenience of traveling to this district to participate in the
settlement conference, in our view, do not impose an extraordinary or
unjustifiable hardship on the plaintiff, and she has provided no other
basis to excuse her in-person participation.
Additionally, it is the undersigned’s experience that in person
appearances of the named parties provide a more meaningful and fruitful
settlement conference void of the many pitfalls and issues associated
with electronic appearances.
6
See e.g.,
Fallgatter v. EF Educational Tours, Civ. No. 4:23-CV-1038,
2024 WL 4536456, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2024) (requiring the plaintiff
to travel from California to this district for a deposition);
Jakubiec v.
Camp Nock-A-Mixen, Inc., Civ. No. 10-4244, 2011 WL 13381371, at *1 n.
1 (E.D. Pa. July 18, 2011) (requiring an international plaintiff to travel
to Pennsylvania for a deposition).
Case 1:25-cv-01906-KMN Document 33 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Accordingly, 	the 	plaintiff’s 	motion 	for 	leave 	to 	appear 	at 	the
settlement conference remotely is DENIED.
So Ordered this 2nd day of February 2026.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01906-KMN Document 33 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 4