Case ID: f-appx_243/html/0002-01.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

Mattie WYRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ST. HELENA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant-Appellee. Gustavia Ceasar, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Iberville Parish School Board, Defendant-Appellee. Lionel Dunn, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-31068
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 8, 2007.
    Jack W. Harang, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Shelton Dennis Blunt, Phelps Dunbar, Suite C, Hammonds & Sills, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before DEMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for conditional class certification pursuant to § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Appellees contend that we do not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, interlocutory decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, non-final judgments certified as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and other non-final orders or judgments to which an exception applies. Clark v. Johnson, 278 F.3d 459, 460 (5th Cir.2002). The denial of a § 216(b) class certification is not a final decision under § 1291, nor does it fall under the “collateral order” exception to § 1291’s final judgment rule. See Baldridge v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 404 F.3d 930, 931, 933 (5th Cir.2005). Further, absent certification under § 1292(b), it is not an interlocutory decision over which we have jurisdiction. See § 1292(a). The district court did not certify its decision as final under Rule 54(b), and there is no other exception that applies to give us jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.