August 13, 2025|Publications
August 13, 2025 | United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts | Unpublished Report and Recommendation
Executive Summary
In an unpublished report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson of the District of Massachusetts denied FedEx’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11 seeking dismissal of a joint employer lawsuit brought by 146 former opt-in plaintiffs. FedEx argued that plaintiffs’ counsel improperly recycled claims from a decertified collective, failed to vet individual plaintiffs, and included class members who either could not or would not meet discovery obligations. Plaintiffs responded that they reasonably relied on sworn declarations from prior litigation, made a sufficient pre-suit inquiry under the circumstances, and filed the case in good faith. The court acknowledged that the complaint likely contained plaintiffs who would fail in discovery or on the merits, but nonetheless found that the First Amended Complaint satisfied Rule 12(b)(6), rested on existing law, and was not filed for an improper purpose.
Relevant Background
This case arises from the aftermath of Roy v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., where delivery drivers alleged that FedEx was their joint employer and owed them overtime under the FLSA. After the court decertified the Roy collective in 2024, plaintiffs’ counsel Lichten & Liss-Riordan had 120 days to refile claims for hundreds of former opt-ins. Counsel chose to file this case on behalf of 146 drivers and filed a companion case, Doyle v. FedEx, on behalf of another thirty-eight.
From the start, the filings reflected serious problems. Plaintiffs’ counsel included an individual whose claims had already been dismissed with prejudice in earlier litigation because he drove trucks that were too heavy to qualify for overtime. Counsel also listed individuals twice, naming them in this action and again in Doyle. Several plaintiffs had claims that were plainly time-barred because they never joined Roy or related cases and therefore did not benefit from tolling. Many of the plaintiffs had also failed to participate in discovery in Roy, raising the same concerns about cooperation in this case.
FedEx moved for dismissal under Rule 11, arguing that plaintiffs’ counsel filed the case to harass and increase costs rather than to litigate viable claims. FedEx emphasized that the First Amended Complaint recycled claims that counsel knew were defective, overloaded the docket with individuals who had no business being there, and forced FedEx to repeat burdensome discovery. According to FedEx, the inclusion of dismissed plaintiffs, duplicate filings, and time-barred claims showed that counsel failed to conduct a reasonable pre-suit investigation and intended to pressure FedEx into settlement through sheer volume and expense.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion and insisted that they had investigated sufficiently. Counsel pointed to sworn declarations filed in Roy in which drivers affirmed under penalty of perjury that they drove eligible vehicles and worked more than forty hours a week without overtime pay. They also relied on their years of experience litigating the same issues and the practical limitations imposed by the 120-day filing window. Plaintiffs acknowledged that some mistakes occurred but argued that errors involving a handful of individuals did not justify the extreme sanction of dismissal when balanced against the group as a whole.
Decision
Judge Robertson rejected FedEx’s motion in a methodical but forgiving analysis. She began by addressing FedEx’s argument that plaintiffs’ counsel failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and filed the case for an improper purpose. The court held that counsel acted within the bounds of Rule 11 because they relied on sworn declarations from Roy, which provided a basis for alleging that the drivers worked more than forty hours per week without overtime pay. While counsel had included at least seven or eight individuals whose claims were clearly defective, they dismissed those claims once FedEx pointed them out, and the court treated the errors as excusable in light of the group size and the short filing deadline.
Turning to FedEx’s concern that many plaintiffs would once again fail to participate in discovery, the court acknowledged that the history in Roy gave FedEx reason to worry. Still, it concluded that speculation about future noncompliance did not justify sanctions at the pleading stage. The court explained that it retained ample authority to address discovery failures as they arose, including the option of dismissing individual claims if necessary.
The court also considered FedEx’s argument that plaintiffs’ counsel acted unreasonably by failing to obtain and review pay records before filing suit. It declined to impose such a bright-line requirement, reasoning that Rule 11 demands an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances rather than a rigid checklist of pre-suit steps. Given the time constraints and the sheer number of potential plaintiffs, the court found that counsel’s reliance on prior sworn statements fell within the range of acceptable practice.
Finally, the court rejected FedEx’s contention that plaintiffs filed the lawsuit simply to harass and increase litigation costs. Although the court recognized that the case would likely include plaintiffs who could not sustain their claims, it accepted counsel’s explanation that they sought to pursue drivers’ alleged FLSA rights rather than to pressure FedEx into settlement. With that, Judge Robertson concluded that the First Amended Complaint stated claims upon which relief could be granted, rested on existing law, and was likely to have evidentiary support. She recommended denying FedEx’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions without prejudice.
Looking Forward
Clients often look at decisions like this and complain that the justice system is broken, asking why plaintiffs are not required to face repercussions through Rule 11 sanctions or a counterclaim. The reality is more sobering. Courts remain reluctant to punish plaintiffs at the pleading stage, preferring to let discovery run its course even when the case appears to be built on shaky ground. For franchisors and employers, this means that frustration over sloppy or duplicative filings must give way to practical planning for prolonged and expensive litigation.
Rather than focusing energy on the unfairness of the process, employers should channel their efforts into building defenses before litigation begins. That means documenting compliance thoroughly, ensuring decision makers do not cross lines that could create joint employer liability, and maintaining a factual record so strong that potential plaintiffs may think twice before filing in the first place. When the record is clear and consistent, courts have less room to excuse procedural missteps, and plaintiffs have fewer incentives to pursue weak claims.
This decision underscores how difficult it can be for employers to obtain early dismissal of joint employer cases, even when plaintiffs make obvious mistakes. The lesson is that employers cannot rely on Rule 11 as a shield, but instead must prepare to confront these claims on the facts, through careful compliance and strategic discovery.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
