Case ID: f-appx_434/html/0398-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jewell WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INCORPORATED; Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P.; Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Defendants-Respondents.
    No. 11-90023.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 28, 2011.
    Richard J. Arsenault, Esq., Neblett, Beard & Arsenault, Alexandria, LA, Andre P. LaPlace, Law Offices of Andre P. La-Place, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Petitioner.
    Michael Beatty Donald, Esq., Jones Walker, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Respondents.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This petition comes to us seeking permission to appeal an order striking the class allegations from plaintiffs complaint and denying as moot plaintiffs motion to certify the class. As we read the district court’s order, instead of ruling on class certification, it struck the claims of the putative class upon holding that under Louisiana law individual notice of claims were required and notice by a class representative was not sufficient. Among other difficulties, the putative class members were not yet before the court, so the court’s substantive ruling that they had no claim is not binding upon any individual members of the putative class.

Because we understand the district court to have dismissed the absent class members’ claims on substantive grounds, rather than addressing the motion for class certification (which it denied as moot), we lack jurisdiction to entertain this petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.