Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-1252
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:10-cv-00775-PJM)
Argued:
December 4, 2012
Decided:
EMPLOYMENT
JUSTICE
PER CURIAM:
This
dispute
arises
in
the
context
of
an
action
working
(Pinkerton),
Base. 1
for
a
Pinkerton
government
Government
contractor
at
Services,
Andrews
Air
Inc.
Force
review
of
the
district
courts
grant
Pinkerton
of
class
for
summary
judgment
based
on
the
federal
enclave
doctrine.
We
more
conclude
rigorous
that
analysis
as
Supreme
to
Court
whether
precedent
class
demands
certification
Pinkerton
has
failed
to
demonstrate
We also conclude
that
the
federal
ensure
requirements
remand
for
meaningful
found
in
review
of,
Rule
23.
reconsideration
the
the
class
Accordingly,
employees
certification
we
motion
vacate
for
and
class
certification
and
decline
to
exercise
pendent
appellate
I.
A.
Pinkerton
variety
of
is
security
private
services.
contractor
From
that
December
provides
2007
through
military
Maryland in 1942.
enclave
acquired
the
United
States
from
At the
back
to
the
base
armory
employees
According
to
to
the
weapons
and
approximately
Appellees,
deposit
prior
15
to
minutes
November
to
complete.
2009,
Pinkerton
off-duty
Pinkerton
was
meal
to
breaks.
"provide
Under
shift
relief
Pinkerton's
for
contract,
employees
during
Pinkerton's
breaks.
increased
and
employees
After
received
November
Pinkerton's
2009,
Id. 3
Prior to November
30-minute
uncompensated
the
break
employees
meal
received
period
45-minute
at
the
guard
shack,
armed,
and
on-call
in
case
of
emergencies.
B.
On March 29, 2010, Appellees, on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated Pinkerton employees, filed suit against
Pinkerton in the United States District Court for the District
of
Maryland.
Appellees
alleged
Pinkerton's
compensation
October
8,
2010,
Pinkerton
moved
for
partial
denied
subsequent
appeal.
Pinkerton's
request
Pinkerton
motion,
to
certify
did
not
and
the
petition
also
The district
denied
issue
for
this
court
Pinkerton's
interlocutory
directly
for
May
30,
2011,
Appellees
moved
for
class
argument from the parties, the district court ruled from the
bench and granted Appellees' request for class certification.
The district court began its analysis by recognizing,
generally, that there were facts common to the entire class,
that is, that all class members were uncompensated for their
meal breaks and that any obligations that allegedly accompanied
their meal breaks were applicable to all class members. 5
The
as
it
similar
to
its
contained
approximately
commonality
members. 6
150
analysis,
the
district
Next,
court
existed
among
the
class
because
some
class
action
going
forward[,]
J.A.
990,
because
those
class members who did not suffer the disarming injury could be
excluded
component.
from
The
any
potential
district
recovery
court
concluded
for
by
the
disarming
reiterating
its
conclusory
three-page
written
order
dated
January
11,
2012.
J.A. 1010.
23(f),
Pinkerton
interlocutory
review
certification
of
of
the
Appellees
petitioned
district
state
law
this
court's
court
grant
claims. 9
On
of
for
class
appeal,
on
Appellees'
doctrine.
state
law
claims
based
on
the
federal
enclave
II.
We
review
district
courts
Rule
23
class
Brown v.
in
limited
and
narrow
circumstances.
Rux
v.
III.
A.
Class Certification
We begin by addressing the central subject of this
appeal:
the
district
courts
grant
of
Appellees
motion
for
class certification.
Rule
governs
contains
the
23
of
procedures
two
the
Federal
related
provisions
that
to
Rules
of
class
actions.
the
party
Civil
Procedure
Rule
seeking
23
class
10
Under
Rule
23(a),
an
individual
or
group
of
that
joinder
of
all
and
In this
either:
(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual
class members would create a risk of:
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
individual class members that would establish incompatible
standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members
that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the
(Continued)
11
On
satisfy
the
appeal,
Pinkerton
threshold
Rule
argues
23(a)(2)
and
Appellees
(3)
failed
to
commonality
and
questions
of
law
or
fact
predominate
over
questions
the
Rule
23(a)
commonality
criterion,
class
Although
potential class members work for the same company, are eligible
for the same remedies, or even suffered a violation of the same
12
[c]ommonality
requires
plaintiff
to
demonstrate
that the class members have suffered the same injury[,] id.
(internal
injury
quotation
that
also
contention.
Id.
marks
and
springs
citation
forth
omitted)
from
the
same
shared
common
means
that
determination
of
its
truth
or
falsity
will
Id.
in Ross v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 667 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2012), is
illustrative.
from
compensation.
collecting
lawfully
earned
overtime
Typicality
into
the
under
representative
class . . . .
Rule
23(a)(3)
parties
requires
ability
to
an
inquiry
represent
or
perfectly
aligned,
13
id.
at
467,
the
representatives
pursuit
of
his
own
interests
must
Id. at 466.
In order to conduct a typicality analysis a court must
class
members.
Id.
at
467.
That
analysis
will
facie
case[;]
[2]
the
facts
on
which
the
Id.;
over
Rule
23(b)(3),
individual
whether
questions
is
common
a
separate
questions
inquiry,
See Wal-
Gunnells v.
Healthplan
Cir.
Servs.,
Inc.,
348
F.3d
417,
429
(4th
2003)
(citing In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1080 (6th Cir.
1996)).
Indeed,
common
issues
of
liability
may
still
See id.
Appx
267
(4th
Cir.
2010),
we
considered
whether
individual
rendered
the
plaintiffs
action
negative,
overarching
we
by
far
individualized
as
to
recognized
issue
so
that
is
where
the
the
liability
qualitatively
issue
of
the
to
the
same
risk
of
harm
every
time
the
defendant
damages
issues
are
insufficient
to
defeat
class
the
commonality
subsumed
under,
23(b)(3)
requirement
or
requirement
superseded
that
by,
the
questions
of
Rule
more
common
23(a)(2)
stringent
to
the
is
Rule
class
Inc., 255 F.3d 138, 146 n.4 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Amchem
Prods.,
Inc.
Nonetheless,
v.
the
Windsor,
Rule
23(a)
521
U.S.
commonality
591,
609
requirement,
(1997)).
and
the
A court
may
analyze
the
dissimilarities
between
class
members
to
and
and
alterations
then
to
omitted),
determine
exists
whether
for
Rule
common
23(a)
questions
See id.
4.
Rigorous Analysis
In
Wal-Mart,
the
Supreme
Court
emphasized
that
the
forth
Rather,
mere
[a]
pleading
party
standard.
seeking
131
class
S.
Ct.
at
certification
2551.
must
he
must
be
prepared
to
prove
that
there
are
in
fact
Id.
marks
omitted);
see
also
Inc.
v.
Conn.
Ret.
Plans and Trust Funds, 568 U.S. ___, No. 11-1085, slip op. at 9
(2013)
(cautioning
that
in
rigorous
class
certification
satisfied).
be
brought
if
representativeness,
the
numerosity,
predominance,
and
commonality,
typicality,
superiority
requirements
146.
In
this
case,
after
reviewing
the
district
courts
oral ruling and brief written order, we find the district court
abused
its
analysis
discretion
sufficient
by
to
failing
enable
to
us
provide
to
conduct
rigorous
meaningful
appellate review.
We first turn to commonality.
factual
circumstances
of
their
meal
breaks,
Given
common
those
common
questions
are
dependent
upon
But
common
(5th
Cir.
(remanding
class
certification
issue
to
this
court
can
identify.
The
district
court
did
not
the
district
court
did
not
conduct
the
Rather,
the
district
courts
limited
oral
ruling
appeared to blend the commonality and predominance inquiries which Wal-Mart counsels against.
J.A.
whether,
method
for
alternatives.
in
fact,
resolving
the
this
class
action
controversy
is
the
compared
superior
to
other
Appellees
suggest
that
to
compensate
for
any
we
Appellees
note
motion
that
for
during
class
the
district
certification,
court
hearing
Appellees
on
undercut
Appellees stated:
admission,
speak
only
to
the
commonality
of
time
worked
19
S.
Ct.
(internal
narrow
at
2553
quotation
gap
(quoting
marks
between
(a)
Falcon,
omitted).
Appellees
457
Here,
claim
U.S.
at
157-58)
there
is
more
have
been
that
they
But whether
First,
class
so
is
impracticable.
district
numerous
court
that
must
joinder
decide
of
all
whether
members
the
is
Such
20
at 2551; see also Ross, 667 F.3d at 90810 (7th Cir. 2012).
Third,
district
court
must
determine
whether
the
if
seeking
class
certification
pursuant
to
exist
for
resolving
the
controversy
and
whether
the
We
typicality,
representativeness,
predominance,
and
to
district
exercise
courts
Appellees
state
pendent
order
law
appellate
denying
claims
jurisdiction
partial
based
on
summary
the
over
judgment
federal
the
on
enclave
doctrine. 11
11
Rux
v. Republic of Sudan, 461 F.3d 461, 474 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing
28 U.S.C. 1291 (2000)).
2002)
that
we
have
pendent
appellate
Swint
v.
Chambers
County
Commission,
514
U.S.
35
(1995),
23
question
that
is
the
proper
subject
of
an
immediate
is
necessary
to
ensure
meaningful
review
of
an
immediately
appealable
issue
of
qualified
immunity
in
1983 action); Bellotte v. Edwards, 629 F.3d 415, 427 (4th Cir.
2011) (same).
But the two potential pendent jurisdiction scenarios
set forth in Swint are not always so easily distinguished.
See
Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 553 n.6 (2d Cir. 2010) (In
some cases, . . . the analysis of the two parts [of the Swint
standard]
will
be
substantially
the
same.)
(citing
Rein
v.
Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 162 F.3d 748, 758 (2d
Cir. 1998)).
Under
the
first
pendent
jurisdiction
scenario,
the
orders at once.
Likewise, we
Point, 330 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2003), we found that resolution of
an
interlocutory
issue
(whether
officers
were
entitled
to
the
qualified
immunity
inquiry
revealed
the
officers
Evans,
703
F.3d
at
654
n.11,
65859
(exercising
pendent
of
finding
neither
appellate
our
qualified
immunity
Swint
rationale
jurisdiction
review
of
fully
over
.
supported
state
immunity
resolved
the
exercising
constitutional
.
issue,
did
pendent
claims
not
but
where
require
any
pendent
issue
will
be
necessary
25
to
ensure
meaningful
issue
is
necessary,
or
essential,
in
resolving
the
United States v. North Carolina, 180 F.3d 574, 581 n.4 (4th Cir.
1999)
(citing
Taylor
v.
Waters,
81
F.3d
429,
437
(4th
Cir.
1996)).
In other words, under Swint [i]t is appropriate to
exercise
pendent
resolution
of
the
appellate
jurisdiction
appealable
issue
only
necessarily
where
[1]
resolves
the
contends
the
issues
implicated
by
the
to
certification
ensure
of
the
meaningful
Maryland
state
review
of,
law
claims,
the
that
class
they
class
certification
issue
necessarily
resolves
the
This is because,
Whether
Although analysis of
which
concern
should
raised
not
by
serve
Pinkerton
as
the
speaks
basis
to
for
judicial
exercising
27
circuits
have
likewise
refused
to
exercise
F.3d
537
(affirming
determination
but
district
refusing
to
courts
exercise
certification
pendent
appellate
jurisdiction,
Burford
abstention,
and
personal
jurisdiction grounds).
Accordingly, we decline to exercise pendent appellate
jurisdiction
over
the
district
courts
denial
of
Pinkertons
conclude
that,
consistent
with
Wal-Mart
Stores,
the
Rule
23
requirements
is
necessary
in
this
case
to
over
any
questions
affecting
only
individual
members.
We
also
decline
to
jurisdiction
over
Pinkertons
exercise
motion
pendent
for
appellate
partial
summary
We exercise pendent
appellate
own
jurisdiction
sparingly,
at
our
discretion,
as
not
shown
that
the
federal
enclave
doctrine
Rux v.
Pinkerton
is
either
to
Pinkertons
invoke
federal
enclave
pendent
doctrine
appellate
argument,
jurisdiction.
if
necessary,