Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01777/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01777-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David C. Anderson
Appellant
Does 1-100

Samuel Pullen
Appellant
Sara Lee Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1777

DAVID C. ANDERSON; SAMUEL PULLEN, on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

SARA LEE CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

DOES 1-100, Inclusive,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (4:03-cv-00031-H)

Argued: May 11, 2010 Decided: June 15, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit 

Judges.

Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished opinion. 

Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Traxler 

and Judge Agee joined.

ARGUED: Alvin Leonard Pittman, Los Angeles, California, for 

Appellants. Alfred Burgess Robinson, Jr., OGLETREE, DEAKINS, 

Appeal: 08-1777 Doc: 43 Filed: 06/15/2010 Pg: 1 of 4
2

NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON 

BRIEF: W. R. Loftis, Jr., Robin E. Shea, CONSTANGY, BROOKS & 

SMITH, LLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1777 Doc: 43 Filed: 06/15/2010 Pg: 2 of 4
3

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:

In Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181, 195 (4th Cir. 

2007), we vacated that portion of the district court’s judgment 

which dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ fraud claim and which 

granted Sara Lee summary judgment on breach of contract and 

negligence claims, and we remanded those claims “for dismissal 

without prejudice as preempted by the FLSA.” (Emphasis added). 

We explained, “This will give the Class Members an opportunity 

to pursue any FLSA claims they may possess.” Id. Our mandate 

thus remanded those claims “with instructions to dismiss without 

prejudice those three claims as preempted by the FLSA.” Id.

On remand, the district court entered an order precisely as 

we instructed. Having dismissed those claims, the court then 

dismissed as moot plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended 

complaint to assert FLSA claims on the ground that such a 

disposition was required by our mandate to dismiss

Plaintiffs now claim in this second appeal that the 

district court abused its discretion, especially because the 

dismissal order on remand would require them to file a new 

action that might well be barred by the applicable statute of 

limitations. Sara Lee moved to dismiss this second appeal, 

arguing that the district court’s dismissal 

the claims.

without prejudice

was not a final judgment under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar 

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993) 

Appeal: 08-1777 Doc: 43 Filed: 06/15/2010 Pg: 3 of 4
4

(holding that a plaintiff may not appeal an order dismissing a 

complaint without prejudice on a ground that could be cured by 

amendment of the complaint). Of course, if Sara Lee is correct, 

the district court’s order was interlocutory, leaving open the 

possibility of further proceedings.

The source of the problems presented in this case lies in 

the lack of clarity of our earlier mandate, which was intended 

to imply that the vacated claims be dismissed without prejudice 

and with leave to allow the plaintiffs to file an amended 

complaint that would purport to state claims under the FLSA. 

Accordingly, we now vacate the district court’s judgment and 

remand the three claims for breach of contract, negligence, and 

fraud with instructions to dismiss those claims without 

prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint within a 

reasonable time to assert any claims that plaintiffs may possess 

under the FLSA.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Appeal: 08-1777 Doc: 43 Filed: 06/15/2010 Pg: 4 of 4