Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-20267/USCOURTS-ca5-16-20267-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Schlumberger Technology Corporation
Petitioner

Document Text:

REVISED MAY 19, 2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20267

In re: SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, 

 Petitioner

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the

Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-3002

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Schlumberger Technology Corporation (“STC”) petitions this Court for 

a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s order granting Plaintiff 

Ryan Riva’s motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act.

The district court’s order contains no substantive analysis of its 

decision to grant conditional certification. Although there is generally no 

“inflexible rule requiring district courts to file a written order explaining 

 * 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 13, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20267 Document: 00513513668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2016
No. 16-20267

2

their decisions,”1 in this case the district court’s “lack of explanation makes it 

impossible for us to determine” whether mandamus relief would be 

appropriate here.2

We therefore remand for the limited purpose to allow the district court 

to supplement its order. Upon limited remand, the district court should enter 

a memorandum or order that explains its decision to grant conditional 

certification. After the district court’s entry of an explanation, the case should 

be returned to this panel, which will retain jurisdiction during the pendency 

of the limited remand.3

STC’s petition is HELD IN ABEYANCE and the case is REMANDED.

 1 Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989).

2 See In re Archer Directional Drilling Servs., L.L.C., 630 F. App’x 327, 329 (5th Cir. 

2016) (citing In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310-11 (5th Cir. 2008)).

3 See id.

 Case: 16-20267 Document: 00513513668 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2016