Constantine v. AAA Cooper Transportation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ALEXANDER CONSTANTINE, 	§
individually and on behalf of all others 	§
similarly situated, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:24-cv-2925-K
§
AAA COOPER TRANSPORTATION, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, United
States 	District 	Judge 	Ed 	Kinkeade 	referred 	Plaintiffs’ 	Expedited 	Motion 	for
Protective Order and Other Relief [Dkt. No. 47] (the “MPO”) to the undersigned
United States magistrate judge for determination or recommendation under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b), see Dkt. No. 48.
After obtaining briefing and allowing oral arguments, see Dkt. Nos. 49-56, the
Court entered a memorandum opinion and order on January 19, 2026 that granted
in part and denied in part the MPO and, in applicable part, (1) found that a letter
Defendant AAA Cooper Transportation (“ACT”) sent to members of the putative
collective “counts as speech that is misleading, coercive, or an attempt to undermine
the collective action”; (2) “order[ed] under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(3)
that ACT and its counsel of record in this case (or their law firm) are required to pay,
jointly and severally, the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for Plaintiffs’
counsel to draft and file their Expedited Motion for Protective Order and Other Relief
Case 3:24-cv-02925-K Document 58 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
[Dkt. No. 47] and reply and appendices [Dkt. No. 51] in support”; and (3) required
that the parties file a joint status report as to attorneys’ fees and costs by February
3, 2026. Constantine v. AAA Cooper Transp., No. 3:24-cv-2925-K, 2026 WL 143149
(N.D. Tex. Jan. 19, 2026) [Dkt. No. 55] (the “MO&O”).
Considering the parties’ February 3, 2026 joint status report [Dkt. No. 57], the
Court GRANTS IN PART ACT’s request for reconsideration under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(b), AMENDS the MO&O as set out below, and ORDERS the
payments of attorneys’ fees consistent with the parties’ agreement.
An order, such as the MO&O, “that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or
the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to
any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a
judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” F ED .
R. CIV. P. 54(b).
And, “[u]nder Rule 54(b), ‘the trial court is free to reconsider and reverse its
decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an
intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law.’” Austin v. Kroger Texas,
L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool
Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 185 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing FED . R. CIV. P. 54(b)), abrogated
on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 n.14 (5th Cir. 1995)
(en banc)).
Considering this authority, the Court reconsiders the MO&O only to the extent
that it relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 as a basis for Plaintiffs’ protective
Case 3:24-cv-02925-K Document 58 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
order and their request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court need not rely on that
rule (or any rule) to order the relief set out in the MO&O, particularly the imposition
of attorneys’ fees. See Williams v. Sake Hibachi Sushi & Bar, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-517-D,
2018 WL 4539114, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2018) (“Case law supports the imposition
of attorney’s fees for misleading and improper communications with potential class
members.” (collecting cases)) (cited in the MPO [Dkt. No. 47 at 14]).
And, so, under the MO&O as modified above, the Court, acknowledging the
parties’ agreement – and in appreciation for their efforts to reach an agreement
without judicial intervention – ORDERS ACT to make the agreed-upon payment of
$10,000 by February 26, 2026.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 5, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-02925-K Document 58 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>