Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-00609/USCOURTS-ca10-19-00609-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hitch Enterprises, Inc.
Petitioner
OXY USA Inc.
Respondent

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

HITCH ENTERPRISES, INC., 

 Petitioner,

v.

OXY USA INC., 

 Respondent.

No. 19-609

(D.C. No. 6:18-CV-01030-EFM-KGG)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before us on a Petition of Plaintiff for Leave to Appeal Pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) (“Petition”) filed by plaintiff-petitioner, Hitch Enterprises, Inc. 

(“Hitch”). We also have a response from respondent-defendant, Oxy USA Inc. 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), “[a] court of appeals may permit an appeal from an 

order of a district court granting or denying class-action certification. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(f) (emphasis added). This discretion is “‘unfettered’ and ‘akin to the discretion 

exercised by the Supreme Court in acting on a petition for certiorari.’” Vallario v. 

Vandehey, 554 F.3d 1259, 1262 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) advisory 

committee’s note). “[T]he grant of a petition for interlocutory review constitutes the 

exception rather than the rule.” Id.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 10, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 19-609 Document: 010110302027 Date Filed: 02/10/2020 Page: 1
2

Vallario described three situations in which interlocutory review of a class 

certification order may be appropriate: (1) “death knell” situations, “in which a 

questionable class certification order is likely to force either a plaintiff or a defendant to 

resolve the case based on considerations independent of the merits,” (2) situations in 

which a class certification order involves “an unresolved issue of law relating to class 

actions that is likely to evade end-of-case review, and, . . . [that issue is] significant to the 

case at hand, as well as to class actions generally,” and (3) situations in which the class 

certification order is “manifestly erroneous.” Id. at 1263. The Petition asks us to permit 

an interlocutory appeal to correct manifest error, and because the district court decision at 

issue sounds the death knell for the putative class members’ claims. 

The Petition does not adequately establish the manifest error necessary to justify a 

permissive interlocutory appeal at this stage of the district court proceedings, nor is 

district court’s order denying class certification the type of “questionable” decision that 

supports interlocutory review on death-knell grounds. Accordingly, and upon careful 

consideration of the parties’ filings, the record, and the applicable law, the Petition is 

DENIED.

Our denial of Hitch’s Petition is not res judicata; it does not limit the district 

court’s discretion to modify its class-certification decision at any time prior to entering 

final judgment. See Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2006) (“The 

district court can modify or amend its class-certification determination at any time before 

final judgment in response to changing circumstances in the case.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

Appellate Case: 19-609 Document: 010110302027 Date Filed: 02/10/2020 Page: 2
3

23(c)(1)(C))).

Entered for the Court,

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 19-609 Document: 010110302027 Date Filed: 02/10/2020 Page: 3