Case Law Petrone v. Werner Enters., Inc.

Petrone v. Werner Enters., Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (6) Cited in (10) Related

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Justin L. Swidler, of Cherry Hill, NJ. The following attorney(s) appeared on the appellant brief; Joshua S. Boyette, of Cherry Hill, NJ.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Elizabeth A. Culhane, of Omaha, NE. The following attorney(s) appeared on the appellee brief; Joseph Edward Jones, of Omaha, NE, and Patrick S. Cooper, of Omaha, NE.

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

This class action arises out of claims by commercial truck drivers who assert that they were not paid proper amounts while working for Werner Enterprises, Inc., and Drivers Management, LLC, (collectively Defendants) as part of Defendants’ Student Driver Program. In a previous appeal, we considered Defendants’ challenge to a jury verdict in favor of Philip Petrone and others (collectively, Plaintiffs) on some of Plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that the district court erred in amending the scheduling order to allow Plaintiffs to submit an expert report past the disclosure deadline without good cause. See Petrone v. Werner Enters., Inc., 940 F.3d 425, 432 (8th Cir. 2019). Because this expert evidence was integral to the jury's verdict, we determined that this error was not harmless, and we vacated the judgment. Id. at 436. This case returns to us after the district court, on remand, entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we vacate the judgment.

I.

Plaintiffs filed this action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Nebraska law stemming from an eight-week student-driver training program run by Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that they were not properly compensated for off-duty time spent on short rest breaks and time spent resting in their trucks’ sleeper-berths. After a three-day trial, the jury awarded Plaintiffs $779,127.00 on the short-term break claims and found in favor of Defendants on the sleeper-berth claims. Plaintiffs appealed, challenging various post-trial rulings, while Defendants cross-appealed, challenging the district court's pre-trial rulings, specifically its ruling extending Plaintiffs’ deadline to disclose expert reports, which allowed Plaintiffs to submit an otherwise untimely expert report.

As relevant here, Plaintiffs had previously timely submitted an expert report, but after "Defendants’ deposition of Plaintiffs’ expert ‘reveal[ed] considerable flaws in the methodology [used by Plaintiffs’ expert] for computing the allegedly uncompensated break and sleeper-berth time,’ " Petrone, 940 F.3d at 432 (first alteration in original) (citation omitted), Plaintiffs moved, pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to modify the scheduling order to file a supplemental expert report. Determining first that the belated expert report was not a supplemental report and was more appropriately considered a new expert report, the district court then concluded that there was no good cause to amend the scheduling order to allow disclosure of the new report, and the failure to timely file the report was neither substantially justified nor harmless. Specifically as to Plaintiffs’ argument that the late disclosure was harmless, the district court stated:

As of the filing of plaintiffsmotion to file a supplemental brief, more than two months had passed since the deadline for the filing of expert reports, defendants had spent time analyzing the original report, and defendants had deposed plaintiffs’ expert; the deadline for submitting Daubert motions was only a month away. In seeking to submit the supplemental report, plaintiffs were imposing on defendants to delay the progression of the case and duplicate work they had already done so that plaintiffs could take advantage of defendants’ diligence in finding errors in the report of plaintiffs’ own expert. The unfairness of such a maneuver and imposition of additional costs is not harmless.

R. Doc. 275, at 5. Nevertheless, the district court noted that "Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure counsels against complete exclusion of the new information" because it provides "that the rules ‘should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every...

5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2024
Cont'l Res., Inc. v. Fisher
"...discretion, with the key question being whether a new trial is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice." Petrone v. Werner Enters., Inc., 42 F.4th 962, 968 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley, 703 F.3d 456, 462 (8th Cir. 2013)). As decided above, the district court..."
Document | Missouri Court of Appeals – 2022
C.T. v. J.L.L.
"...its discretion due to a mistaken view of its authority is grounds for remand, rather than deference. See Petrone v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 42 F.4th 962, 968 (8th Cir. 2022) (finding district court's failure to conduct requisite analysis prior to excluding expert testimony in support of m..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska – 2023
Petrone v. Werner Enters.
"... PHILIP PETRONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., and DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants. Nos. 8:11CV401, 8:12CV307 United States District Court, D. Nebraska April 14, 2023 ...           ... MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ... RECONSIDERATION AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ... FILE ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2024
Bader Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.
"...of the conspiracy. This court reviews de novo a district court's interpretation of an appellate mandate. Petrone v. Werner Enters., Inc., 42 F.4th 962, 968 (8th Cir. 2022), quoting United States v. Parks, 700 F.3d 775, 777 (6th Cir. 2012). "On remand, a district court is bound to obey stric..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2024
Petrone v. Werner Enters.
"...excluded as a discovery sanction and whether the district court should appoint an independent expert. See Petrone v. Werner Enters., Inc. (Petrone II), 42 F.4th 962 (8th Cir. 2022). On remand, the district court1 conducted this analysis and concluded that exclusion of Plaintiffs' expert rep..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2024
Cont'l Res., Inc. v. Fisher
"...discretion, with the key question being whether a new trial is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice." Petrone v. Werner Enters., Inc., 42 F.4th 962, 968 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley, 703 F.3d 456, 462 (8th Cir. 2013)). As decided above, the district court..."
Document | Missouri Court of Appeals – 2022
C.T. v. J.L.L.
"...its discretion due to a mistaken view of its authority is grounds for remand, rather than deference. See Petrone v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 42 F.4th 962, 968 (8th Cir. 2022) (finding district court's failure to conduct requisite analysis prior to excluding expert testimony in support of m..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska – 2023
Petrone v. Werner Enters.
"... PHILIP PETRONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., and DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants. Nos. 8:11CV401, 8:12CV307 United States District Court, D. Nebraska April 14, 2023 ...           ... MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ... RECONSIDERATION AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ... FILE ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2024
Bader Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.
"...of the conspiracy. This court reviews de novo a district court's interpretation of an appellate mandate. Petrone v. Werner Enters., Inc., 42 F.4th 962, 968 (8th Cir. 2022), quoting United States v. Parks, 700 F.3d 775, 777 (6th Cir. 2012). "On remand, a district court is bound to obey stric..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2024
Petrone v. Werner Enters.
"...excluded as a discovery sanction and whether the district court should appoint an independent expert. See Petrone v. Werner Enters., Inc. (Petrone II), 42 F.4th 962 (8th Cir. 2022). On remand, the district court1 conducted this analysis and concluded that exclusion of Plaintiffs' expert rep..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex