govinfo:USCOURTS-ncmd-1_21-cv-00506-5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
TIFFANY WADE on behalf of herself 
and all others similarly situated, 
)
) 
 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) 1:21-CV-506 
 ) 
JMJ ENTERPRISES, LLC, and 
TRACI JOHNSON MARTIN, 
)
) 
 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. 
A jury found that the defendants, JMJ Enterprises, LLC and its owner Traci 
Martin, violated state and federal wage and hour laws by underpaying workers at group 
homes they operate. The jury awarded damages for the federal violations to opt-in 
members of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective. Doc. 181. Damages for the Rule 23 
class injured by state law violations was bifurcated for resolution later. See Doc. 167. 
 Upon consideration of the parties’ competing submissions as to the best way to 
resolve the state law damages claims of the class members, the Court concludes that a 
jury trial is necessary to protect the defendants’ Seventh Amendment rights. To help the 
parties prepare for the trial and to avoid some of the problems that arose in the lead-up to 
and during the first trial, the Court will impose additional requirements to make the trial 
run smoothly and efficiently. 

2 
 
I. A Jury Trial Is Necessary 
 The parties have filed submissions directed to the options for determining 
damages for the class. The plaintiff proposes that the Court “review the Rule 1006 
[payroll data] summaries, resolve any disputes about whether those summaries accurately 
reflect the underlying records, and then determine the aggregate amount those records 
yield under the [jury’s] verdict.” Doc. 192 at 7. Although it is not entirely clear from her 
briefs, the plaintiff seems to propose that the Court sum the missing wages and improper 
deductions from the defendants’ records and increase that total by 28.84% to calculate 
class damages. See id. at 6–7. In response, the defendants assert that “the issue of class 
damages must be submitted to a jury for resolution.” Doc. 194 at 3. 
1 
The Seventh Amendment provides in relevant part that “the right of trial by jury 
shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any 
Court of the United States.” U.S. Const. amend. VII. “It has long been recognized that 
‘by the law the jury are judges of the damages.’” Feltner v. Columbia Pictures 
Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 353 (1998) (quoting Lord Townsend v. Hughes, 86 Eng. 
Rep. 994, 994–95 (KB 1676)). 
 
1 The defendants cite Reality Equities Corp, v. Gerosa, 30 Misc. 2d 481, 483-84, 209 N.Y .S.2d 
446, 450-51 (Sup. Ct. 1960) for the proposition that “in successful class actions, the courts face 
the necessity of establishing an efficient procedure for the allocation and distribution of the 
damages to each individual class member.” Doc. 194 at 1. The Court does not question that 
proposition, but nothing in that case supports it. It is a mystery why counsel cited a 1960 New 
York state case irrelevant to the point. Perhaps counsel fell victim to for careless use of artificial 
intelligence in their legal research. Whether that is so or not, defense counsel is reminded of the 
provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It is a violation of that rule to cite a case 
that does not support the proposition stated. 

3 
 
The plaintiff implicitly acknowledges that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury 
determination but contends that a jury has already made the necessary decisions. See 
Doc 192 at 1.2 But the jury’s findings on damages for the FLSA opt-in plaintiffs are 
insufficient to make calculation of the state law damages a simple matter of math. 
 At the trial, the plaintiff’s damages evidence took more than one form. Dr. 
Woolfson provided summaries of JMJ’s payroll data, and a sampling of opt-in plaintiffs 
offered representative testimony. While Dr. Woolfson’s payroll summaries helped the 
jury understand the documented instances of underpayment, the representative testimony 
was essential to proving the undocumented instances, since, by definition, off-the-clock 
work is not reflected in payroll records. 
The jury’s verdict reflects their consideration of damages evidence beyond Dr. 
Woolfson’s summaries. Instead of simply adopting the numbers in the summary as their 
damages findings, the jury sometimes awarded more in damages than the payroll 
summaries suggested, contrast Doc. 170-1 at 6 (totaling $1,437.15 owed to Shamekia 
Allred-Clapp), with Doc. 181 at 2 (awarding $3,385.00 in damages to Shamekia Allred-
Clapp), and they sometimes awarded less. Contrast Doc. 170-1 at 6 (totaling $593.04 
owed to Marquashia Bradley), with Doc. 181 at 2 (awarding $558.00 in damages to 
Marquashia Bradley). So the jury did more than simply apply a fixed multiplier to the 
 
2 The plaintiff does not appear to contend that the Seventh Amendment jury trial right does 
not attach to a claim for compensatory damages under the NCWHA. If that is her contention, 
then that argument is underdeveloped and warrants no consideration. See Steves & Sons, Inc. v. 
JELD-WEN, Inc., 988 F.3d 690, 727 (4th Cir. 2021) (“Perfunctory and undeveloped arguments 
are waived.” (cleaned up)). 

4 
 
summary data, and the plaintiff’s suggestion otherwise, see Doc. 192 at 6, is unfounded. 
For the Court to now step in and calculate class damages using a fixed multiplier would 
be to replace the jury’s methodology with something different. That is the exact result 
the Seventh Amendment prohibits. 
Instead, the Court will follow the defendants’ proposed course, with some 
modifications. 
The first jury already determined that the defendants failed to pay the class 
members all wages due for mandatory meetings, mandatory trainings, improper 
reductions from the time log, work never input into the time system, and overtime. Doc. 
181 at 3. Thus, the jury found that each class member was injured, and each one is 
therefore entitled to at least nominal damages. U.S. Const. amend. VII (“[N]o fact tried 
by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined.”); see Bogovich v. Embassy Club of Sedgefield, 
Inc., 211 N.C. App. 1, 12, 712 S.E.2d 257, 264 (2011) (“According to well-established 
law, once a cause of action is established, plaintiff is entitled to recover nominal 
damages.” (cleaned up)). 
A second jury will determine the amount of compensatory damages each class 
member is entitled to receive under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.22(a), mirroring the approach 
used to determine the damages obtained by the FLSA opt-in plaintiffs. See Doc. 181 at 
2–3. As happened at the first trial, this can be done through summary evidence of payroll 
records and some representative testimony from a few class members to give the jury 
context and a basis for calculating other damages not reflected directly in the payroll 
records. Therefore, only one trial on damages for class members will be necessary. 

5 
 
The Court has considered other alternatives. But each presents challenges that 
counsel in favor of the chosen approach. 
Individual jury trials could be set for each of the nearly 100 class members. But if 
each trial only took a single day, that would require the Court to sideline almost the 
entirety of its busy docket for months in order for the parties to put on largely duplicative 
evidence. The defendants have not asked the Court for such an inefficient process. 
A set of bellwether trials could be held, providing more information for the parties 
to use in negotiating settlements of the remaining claims. But it seems unlikely the 
parties’ positions would change after a few more jury verdicts if the first jury’s FLSA 
damages findings did not move the needle. See generally Ayers v. GKN Driveline N. Am., 
Inc., No. 23-CV-581, 2026 WL 1091268, at *7 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 2026) (“Optimism is 
not a case management strategy.”). Neither party suggests that this would be helpful. 
The class could be decertified and notice could be provided to the former class 
members informing about the possibility of pursuing damages on an individual basis. See 
e.g., Tardiff v. Knox Cnty, 365 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2004). But if the FLSA damages awards 
are any indicator, many of the class members’ claims will be for well less than $1,000, 
see Doc. 181 at 2–3 (awarding seven out of fifteen collective members less than $500), so 
the prospect of individual suits is unrealistic and the defendants would effectively be let 
off the hook for the wage and hour violations a jury has already found they committed. 
In their briefing, the defendants did not suggest decertification. 
It seems that the plaintiff now has an organized way to present the damages 
evidence in a coherent and efficient fashion, through classwide summary evidence and a 

6 
 
limited amount of representative evidence. Thus, resolution on a class basis remains 
manageable. The first trial only took three days, and this trial should not take any more 
time than that, since liability is not at issue. Based on its extensive experience with this 
case and hundreds of other jury trials over the years, the Court finds that three days will 
be sufficient if the parties are organized. A time limit will encourage such organization. 
 There may also be other efficient alternatives for resolving this dispute, such as 
binding arbitration, a summary bench trial, or referral to a special master, but the parties 
have not agreed to one. Absent the consent of the parties, those avenues remain closed. 
See AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648 (1986); Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 39(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1). A second jury trial to decide each class member’s 
damages protects the Seventh Amendment rights of the defendants and, in the absence of 
an agreement otherwise, is the best route toward “the just, speedy, and inexpensive 
determination” of the class’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 
II. Trial Preparation and Logistics 
 The parties have had no success at resolving any part of this case by agreement. 
That is their prerogative. It may still be that there are ways to narrow the remaining 
issues, resulting in a more efficient trial. That would benefit all parties. To that end, the 
Court will impose some additional pretrial obligations. 
First, the Court will establish a process for the parties to work through issues about 
the accuracy of any summary of payroll records to be offered at trial. The Court already 
determined at the first trial that a summary of payroll records was admissible under Rule 
1006, and it would save time and reduce confusion if the parties could agree on an 

7 
 
accurate summary or summaries of at least some of the relevant data. 3 From the briefing, 
it seems likely that the plaintiff already has such a summary either prepared or in process. 
Second, the Court will require the plaintiff to promptly provide the defendants 
with a list of the amount of damages she will seek at trial for each class member, with an 
explanation of how those damages are calculated and explaining reasons for any 
individual differences. The defendants are reminded that the jury has already determined 
that JMJ’s payroll records do not accurately reflect all work done by the class members 
and for which they should have been but were not paid, so it is permissible for the 
plaintiff to use estimates to fill in the gaps. See generally Tyson Foods, Inc. v. 
Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442, 456 (2016) (explaining Mt. Clemens burden shifting). The 
parties shall further discuss whether there are facts to which they can stipulate. 
Third, the Court will consider allowing the plaintiff to serve Requests for 
Admission specific to the damages claimed by each class member and requiring the 
defendants to either admit the amount of damages or, if they do not admit the amount in 
whole, to answer with the specificity required by Rule 36(a)(4) or face sanctions. If the 
plaintiff wishes to go this route, she should present the proposed Requests to defense 
counsel, and counsel shall meet and confer in an effort to decide if this is workable and 
productive. If plaintiff concludes such discovery is workable and productive, she may 
 
3 The defendants continue to say that any such summary will be inadmissible, and they point 
to a number of problems with such a summary. Doc. 194 at 2–3. They are exactly the kinds of 
problems the parties should be able to work through, and in any event those objections are 
unlikely to be insurmountable for the plaintiff, assuming she is prepared. The summary will be 
based on the defendant’s voluminous payroll data, and there is no obvious reason the parties 
cannot agree to an accurate summary of at least some of the payroll data. 

8 
 
file a motion for limited reopening of the discovery period for this purpose. Defendants 
are reminded that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) does not allow blanket denials 
and requires a significant degree of specificity. See generally Fisher v. Balt. Life Ins. Co., 
235 F.R.D. 617, 630 (N.D.W. Va. 2006) (Mag. J., Opinion & Order); see also Fed.R.Civ.P 
36(a)(6)(noting that answers which do not comply can result in an order that the facts are 
admitted). 
Fourth, the parties had some difficulties with trial preparation the first time 
around. The plaintiff was not completely organized with her exhibits in the lead-up to 
trial, and the defendants were not organized with their exhibits during the trial. To reduce 
the chance that this will occur again, the Court will place specific requirements on the 
disclosure of exhibits and witness lists. 
Finally, the Court will direct the parties to meet and confer about potential trial 
dates. The Court will also set firm deadlines for complying with the requirements in Rule 
26(a)(3) and LR 40.1(c). 
 It is ORDERED that: 
1. The plaintiff’s motion for damages, Doc. 191, is GRANTED to the extent that the 
Court will set the damages issue for jury trial and the motion is otherwise 
DENIED. 
2. Three days is sufficient to try the case from opening statement to closing 
argument. The Court will set specific time limits for each side later. 
3. Counsel SHALL immediately confer with their clients, witnesses, and each other, 
and no later than June 29, 2026, SHALL jointly provide the case manager with at 

9 
 
least three possible trial dates between October 19, 2026, and January 29, 2027, 
excluding November 23–27 and December 21–31. 
4. The Court will set a trial date and pretrial conference by separate order as time 
permits. If the parties agree on an alternate method to resolve class damages, they 
SHALL promptly advise the Court. 
5. Any party intending to offer at trial a summary of records pursuant to Federal Rule 
of Evidence 1006 SHALL, no later than July 3, 2026, provide the other party with 
a copy of the summary or summaries. Counsel SHALL thereafter meet and 
confer in an effort to identify any inaccuracies or corrections that need to be made, 
with the hope that the parties can stipulate to the admission of an accurate 
summary of some or all of the relevant data. 
6. No later than July 10, 2026, the plaintiff SHALL provide the defendants with a 
list detailing the amount of damages she expects to seek at trial for each individual 
class member, explaining of how those damages were calculated and reasons for 
any differences between class members. 
a. Counsel SHALL thereafter meet and confer to see if claims of some of the 
class members can be resolved and to narrow and focus areas of 
disagreement. Counsel SHALL discuss possible stipulations as to any 
facts relevant to the damages claims and SHALL discuss ways to be 
efficient with the time allotted for trial. 
b. If, after presenting proposed Requests for Admission to defense counsel 
and meeting and conferring about the same, the plaintiff concludes RFAs on 

10 
 
damages would be workable and helpful, she may, no later than July 20, 
2026, file a motion for limited reopening of the discovery period for this 
purpose and shall attach the proposed RFAs to the motion; the defendant 
shall respond to the motion within five business days, and the plaintiff may 
reply within three business days. 
7. Witness and exhibit lists: 
a. The parties SHALL file the witness and exhibit lists required by Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) and LR 40.1(c) no later than August 28, 
2026. On that same date, the parties SHALL exchange exhibit notebooks 
containing copies of all exhibits, with numbered exhibit stickers already 
attached and with the exhibit number corresponding to the exhibit list. The 
parties SHALL file a hard copy of the notebook with the Clerk but SHALL 
NOT file copies of the exhibits on the electronic docket. 
b. Objections and motions in limine SHALL be filed no later than September 
11, 2026. Responses to motions in limine SHALL be filed no later than 
September 18, 2026. 
c. Any exhibits in the form of charts or tables SHALL be filed in both digital 
spreadsheet format and a printable format with a font size large enough to 
be comfortably read without magnification. 
8. Any deposition designations or designations of testimony from the first trial 
SHALL be served, but not filed, no later than August 14, 2026. Objections and 
counter-designations SHALL be served, but not filed, no later than August 21, 

11 
 
2026. Objections to counter-designations SHALL be served, but not filed, no later 
than August 28, 2026. The parties SHALL immediately thereafter meet and 
confer in an effort to narrow and focus any disputes. If deposition or previous trial 
testimony from fewer than four witnesses will be offered, the designations, 
counter-designations, and objections, as narrowed after meeting and conferring, 
SHALL be filed by joint submission no later than September 11, 2026. If 
deposition or previous trial testimony from four or more witnesses will be offered, 
the parties SHALL advise the case manager by joint email sent no later than 
September 11, 2026, of the general nature and extent of any remaining 
disagreements and whether designations are likely to be narrowed as trial 
approaches. 
9. Trial briefs required by LR 40.1(a) SHALL be filed no later than September 18, 
2026. 
10. The parties SHALL exchange a proposed verdict sheet and proposed jury 
instructions no later than August 14, 2026, and SHALL thereafter meet and confer 
in an effort to narrow and focus any disputes. No later than August 28, 2026, the 
parties SHALL file a joint submission containing agreed upon instructions and 
any additional requests for instructions as to which there is disagreement, clearly 
identifying the specific disagreements and the same for a proposed verdict sheet. 
11. If any party believes that a judicial settlement conference with the Magistrate 
Judge would be helpful, they may ask for it. Otherwise, the Court does not plan to 
hold a judicial settlement conference. The Court encourages the parties to explore 

12 
 
settlement, and the parties are welcome to participate in a further mediation, if 
they choose. 
12. Except as explicitly modified herein or otherwise, the provisions of the otherwise 
applicable Local Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure apply. 
13. The Court expects the parties to comply with these deadlines without moving for 
extensions or modifications, absent settlement or agreement to an alternative 
method of resolution. 
This the 17th day of June, 2026. 
 
 ___________________________________ 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 

Passage view · GavelSight