### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10417
C H R I S T I N AMU L L E N A C E V E D O ; MA R KA C I R E N O ; T E R E S AA G N E W; F E R N A N D O A G U E R O ; C E C IL IAG . A L B E R T ; E T A L
. P l a i n ti ffs-A p p ell a n t s v. AL LSU P’ S CO N VE N I EN CE STO RE S I N C. , a N e w M e xi c o Cor po r at i o n; L O N N IE D . A L L S U P , a n in d iv id u a l; B A R B A R AJ . A L L S U P , a n in d iv id u a l. D efen da n t s- A pp el l ee s

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or t h e N o rth e rn D istr ict o f T e x a s (A m a rill o D ivis ion )

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d B E N AV ID E S an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: In 200 7, A pp el l an t s C h ri st i n a A cevedo an d ap proxi m atel y 800 current or f orm er em pl oyees of

A l l sup ’ s C on ven i en ce Stor i es, I n c. ( “A l l sup ’ s” ) opted i n t o a representat ive act i on againstt h ei r em pl oyer, seek i n g pa ym en tof u n pa i d w ages and ove r t i m e undert he Fai rLaborSt andards A c t( “ FL SA ” ) , 29 U
. S. C
. §§ 201 –19 ( 20 06 )
. Af

t e rt he di s t r i c tc o ur tde c e r t i f i ed t he r e pr e s e nt at ive a c t i o n a nd d is m is s e d A p p e lla n ts ’cla im s , t h e yfile d th e p r e s e n t a c tio n , se e k in gjo in d e ro f a ll di sm i ssed pl ai n t i f

fs i n a si n gl e l aw sui tadv an ci n g t h e sam e cl ai m s ag ai n st A l l sup’ s. The di st r i c tcourtagai n di sm i ss ed t hei rc l ai m s, c onc l udi ng t hat United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 15, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10417 Document: 00511051205 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 10417

Althou ghw e hav e c le ar ly held that not all Rule 23 cla ss action standards are 1 app licab leto § 2 1 6 (b) action s, see LaChapelle v. Owens-Ill., Inc. , 51 3 F .2d 2 86, 288(5th Cir. 1 9 7 5), weh ave not a dopt ed any of the varying app ro aches for determiningwheth ere mp loyee s’ clai ms aresufficientlysimil ar to support maintenance of arep resentativeaction . In Moone y v. Aramco Services C

o. , we uphel d a § 2 16(b) decertification butle f tt hi sque s t ionope n. 54 F .3 d 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 1 6( 5 thC ir .1 9 9 5), over rul ing on other grounds recognized by Rac hid v. Jack In The Box , I nc. , 3 7 6F .3 d 3 0 5 , 3 1 1 n .1 0( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 4). 2 Appe l l ant s w e r e notpr o pe r l y j o i ne d as pl ai nt i f fs i n a si ngl e ac t i o n. Ace ve do a nd he rfe l l o w f

o r t y- s c o r e pl ai nt i f

fs no w a pp eal thi s di s m i s s al
. W e ho l d t hatt he d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in gm a s s jo in d e ro f a ll A p p e lla n ts
. H o w e v e r , w e a ls o co n c lu d e th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in di sm i ss i ng t he e nt i r e a c t i on f orm i sj oi nder
. There f or e, w e r eve r se t he di sm i ss al
o f A c e v e d o ’ s c l a i ms a n d t h e c l a i ms o f a n yA p p e l l a n twh o h a s w o r k e d a tt h e s a me store as A cev ed o, a n d rem a n d this case to t h e d i stri ct cou rt. I. I n S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 6 , Le s a Pr o c t o r , Du n c a n Pr o c t o r , a n d J o h n n yRob bi ns f i l ed an act i on i n federaldi st ri ctcourtagainstA l l sup ’ s, t h ei r f orm er em pl oyer, s e e k in gp a y m e n to f u n p a id w a g e s a n d o v e r t i m e u n d e rth e F L S A . A ll s u p ’s ope r at es a c hai n of

c onveni enc e s t or es i n N ew M exi c o, Texas , and O kl ahom a. P u r s u a n t t o 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 1 6 (b ), th e p la in tiffs a ls o s o u g h t to b r in gs u it o n b e h a lf of “sim i l ar l y s i t uat ed” c urr entorf or m erem pl oye es of

A l l sup’ s. Sec t i on 216(b)
o n lya u th o r iz e s s u c h re p r e s e n ta tiv e a c tio n s to b e file d o n b e h a lf o f in d iv id u a ls
w h o h a v e g iv e n th e ir“c o n s e n t in w r itin gt o b e c o m e . . . a p a r ty .” 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 1 6 (b ). W e h a v e not r u l ed on how di st ri ctcourt s s h ou l d d et erm i n e w h et h er pl ai n t i f fs are suff

i ci en t l y “ sim il a rly si t u ated” t o adv an ce t h ei r c l ai m s t ogether i n a si n gl e § 216(b) act i on . C on sequ en t l y, t h e di st ri ct court l ooked t o Lus ar di 1
v . Xe r o xCor

p. f or gu i da n ce. 118 F
. R
. D
. 351 ( D
. N
. J. 198 7)
. “ U n der Lus ar di , t he tr ia l co u r t a p p r o a c h e s th e ‘ s im ila r lys itu a te d ’in q u ir yv ia a tw o -s te p a n a ly s is .” Moon ey , 54 F
. 3d at 121 3. Fir st , t h e courtdeter m i n es w h et h er t h e pu t ative cl ass Case: 09-10417 Document: 00511051205 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 10417

3 m em b ers’cl a i m s ar e su ff i ci en tl y sim i l a r to m erit sen d i n g n oti ce of the action to p o s s ib le m e m b e r s o f th e cla s s . Id
. at 121 3- 14. I f t h ey are, noti ce i s s en tan d n ew p la in tiffs a r e p e r m itt e d to “o p t in ” t o th e la w s u it. Id
. at 121 4. Secon d, af t er di s c o ve r y i s l ar ge l y c o m pl e t e and m o r e i nf o r m at i o n o n t he c as e i s a va i l ab l e , t he
c o u r t m a k e s a fin a l d e te r m in a tio n o f w h e th e ra ll p la in tiffs a r e s u ffic ie n tly
s im ila r lys itu a te d to p r o c e e d to g e th e rin a s in g le a c tio n . Id
. A tt h e f i rstst a g e o f

t h e cer t i f

i cat i on process , t h e di st ri ctcourtal l ow ed P r o c to ra n d th e tw o o th e rp la in tiffs to n o tif y o t h e rA lls u p ’ s e m p lo y e e s o f th e ir l aws ui t , a nd m o r e t ha n a t ho us a nd ne w p l a i nt i f fs o p t e d i nt o t he i r§ 216(b)
ac t i on. H ow eve r , af

t erdi sc ove r y, i n A pri l2008 t he di st r i c tcour tconc l uded t hat th e p l a i n ti ffs’cl a i m s f or u n p a i d ov ertim e a n d w a ge s w ere too d i ssim i l a r to pr o c e e d a s a s i ngl e r e pr e s en t at ive a c t i o n. Con s e que nt l y, i tdi s m i s s e d wi t ho ut p reju d i ce a l lp l a i n ti ffs from the cas e ex cep t t h e P roctor s, an d tol l ed the statu te
o f lim ita ti on s f

or th i rty d a ys to all ow the dism i sse d plain ti ffs to refile i n di vi du al l y. Aj u ry ev en t u al l y f ou n d aga i n stt h e P roct ors, an d they op t ed n ot to ap p ea lthe j u d gm en t. S h o r tlya fte rth e d e c e r tific a tio n o r d e r , co u n s e l fo rth e P r o c to r s file d th is la w su it i n th e sa m e c o u r t o n b e h a lf o f A ce v e d o a n d ea ch of th e p la in tiffs di sm i ssed f

rom t h e P roct ors’sui t
. A cev e d o a n d h er f el l ow A pp el l an t s di d n ot
s e e k to re c e r tify th e fa ile d c la s s , b u t ra th e r e a c h A p p e lla n t sim p lyb r o u g h t t h e ir d i sti n ct F L S Acl a im s o n the i r ow n be h a l f, j oin ed i n a sin gle l a w su i t. In
r e s po ns e , Al l s up’ s f i l e d am o t i o n s e e ki ng t o di s m i s s a l lAppe l l ant s e xc e pt A c e v e d o fo rm isjo in d e ru n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f C i v il P r o c e d u r e 2 1
. S ee Fe d
. R. C iv. P
. 2 1 ( “ O n m ot i on or on it s ow n , t h e courtm ay at an y t i m e, on j u stt erm s, a d d o rd r o p a p a r ty .”). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a g a in co n c lu d e d th a t A p p e lla n ts ’cla im s w er e t oo di ssi m i l art o g o f or w ar d i n a s i ngl e a c t i on, buti tal so r ul ed t hat
s e pa r at e l awsui t s c o ul d p r o c e e d j o i ni ng al lAppe l l ant s w h o had wor ke d a tt he
s am e Al l s up’ s st o r e . A c e ve do a nd h e rfe l l o w pl ai nt i f fs t he n f i l e d t hi s a ppe al , a nd Case: 09-10417 Document: 00511051205 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 10417

4 w e r e q u e s t e d b r ie fi n gfr o m th e p a r t ie s to a d d r e s s w h e t h e rth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
m i sj oi n d e r ru l i n g w as f i n alan d ap pea l able u n der 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1291
. Soon th e r e a fte r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c l a r i f i e d t h a t it s o r d e rw a s fin a l a n d e x p lic itly d i sm i sse d the cl a i m s of each A p p ell a n t. II. A s an i ni t i al m at t er , w e m ust as sur e o urs elves of ourj uri sdi c t i on t o he ar t hi s ap p ea l
. W e o nl y have j uri sdi c t i on o verappeal s f r om “ f i naldec i si ons . ” 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1291
. A s n o te d a b o ve, w h en A cevedo an d h er f el l ow A pp el l an t s f

i l ed th is a p p e a l, w e d ir e c te d th e p a r tie s to b r ie f w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e r“is a f i nalor der , purs uant t o 2 8 U
. S. C
. § 1291, or w het hersom e o t herj uri sdi c t i onal p rov i sion a p p l i es, so t h a t th i s cou rt h a s j u ri sd i cti on ov er t h e ap p ea l.” In response, t h e parti es s ou gh tan order f rom the di st ri ctcou rtcl ari f yi n g i t s earl i er order. So o n t he r e af t e r , i n J ul y 20 09 , t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti s s ue d a n o r der
ex p l a i n i n g th a t: O n A p r il 6 , 2 0 0 9 , th is C o u r t is s u e d a n o r d e rth a t t h e P la in tiffs in th is law su it ca n n o t p ro ce e d in a sin g le la w su it an d th a t P la in tiffs ca n on ly p ro ce e d o n a sto re -b y -sto re b a sis
. T h e re for e , a llP la in tiffs a r e h e r e b yd is m is s e d w ith o u t p r eju d ic e to r e f ilin gth e ircla im in ac c or dance w i t h t he C our t ’ s A pri l6, 2009 O rder
. Thi s i s a f i nal O rd er re solvin g a l lcl a i m s be fore th e C ou rt. A l t hough j oi nderr ul i ngs ar e us ual l y not di r ec t l y appeal abl e, w e c onc l ude t hat t he unus ualc i r c um s t anc e s o f t hi s c as e g r antus a ppe l l at e j ur i s di c t i o n.

“ O rdin a ri l y orders gr an t i n g or deny i n g j oi n der or s u bsti t u t i on are not fin a l.” 1 5 B C h a r le s A lle n W r ig h t e t a l., Fed eralPract i ce an dProce d u re § 3914. 18 ( 2d ed. 2002)
. Such or der s ar e us ual l y notf i nalbe c ause under R ul e 2 1

“ [ m ] i sj o i nd e ro f

p a r t i e s i s no ta g r o un d fo rdi s m i s s i ngan ac t i o n. ” Fe d
. R. Civ . P. 21. As s uch, af

ter t he c l ai m s of

m i sj oi ned par t i es ar e s eve r ed o rdr opped, at l eas t one pl ai nt i f

f t ypi c al l y r em ai ns t o purs ue hi s or her c l a i m s to a fi nal ju d g m e n t. See , e . g. , D ire cT V , In c. v. L eto , 4 6 7 F. 3 d 8 4 2 , 8 4 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ To Case: 09-10417 Document: 00511051205 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 10417

5 r e m e dym i sj o i nde r. . . a c o ur tm ayno ts i m pl y di s m i s s a s ui ta l t o ge t he r . I ns t e ad , t h e cou r tha s t w o r e m e di alo pt i o ns : ( 1) m i sj o i ne d p ar t i e s m ayb e dr o ppe d ‘ on suc h t er m s as ar e j ust ’ ; or( 2) any c l ai m s agai nstm i sj oi ned par t i es ‘ m ay be
s e v e r e d a n d p r o c e e d e d w ith s e p a r a te ly .’” (q u o tin gF e d . R . C iv . P . 2 1 )); A abe rg v . A Can d SI

n c. , 1 5 2 F .R .D . 4 9 8 , 5 0 1 ( D . M d . 1 9 9 4 ) (e x p la in in gth a t c o u r t w ill
r e m e d ym isjo in d e ro f o n e th o u s a n d p la in tiffs in s in g le la w s u it b y“d r o p [p in g] a ll bu tt h e fi rstn am ed pl ai n t i f f ” fr om case)
. Th i s c ase i s at yp i cal , how ever, becau se t he di s t r i c tc o ur tvi o l at e d R ul e 21 bydi s m i s s i ng t he c l ai m s o f a l lpl ai nt i f

fs . Due t o t hi s e r r o r , w e c o nc l ude t hat t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s m i sj o i nde rr ul i ng i s f i nala nd ap pe al ab l e , a s t he c o ur t ’ s ord e r“ r e s o lve s a l lq ue s t i o ns a s t o a l lpa r t i e s a nd l ea ve s [ th e] cou rt w i th n oth i n gt o d o b u t exe cu te the j u d gm en t. ” A s kanasev. L i vi ngw el l, I

n c. , 9 8 1 F .2 d 8 0 7 , 8 1 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T h i s c on cl u si on does n ot confl i ct w i t h ou r pri or cases h ol di n g t h at part i es c a n n o t c r e a te a p p e lla te ju r i s d i c tio n b ys e e k in ga v o lu n ta r yd is m is s a l o f th e ir cl ai m s w i t h ou tprej u di ce. See, e . g. , Marsh a ll v. K an . C i ty S
. Ry. Co. , 378 F. 3d 4 9 5 , 5 0 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (p e rcu r ia m ); S w ope v. Col u m bi an C h em s. Co. , 281 F. 3d 185 , 19 2 -9 3 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)
. I n t h i s c ase, A pp el l an t s di d n otseek a vol u n t ary di s m i s s al
. I ns t e ad , i n r e s po ns e t o o ur i nqui r y, t he y s o ugh t c l ar i f i c at i o n f r o m t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta s t o t he r e ac h o f i t s earl i ero r de r . Ourpr e vi o us c as e s r e f us i ng appel l at e j uri sdi c t i on have not i nvolved suc h a si t uat i on; r at her , t hey h a ve c o nc e r ne d apa r t y’ s ex pl i c i tre que s ton i t s ow n i ni t i at ive t o di s m i s s a l lr e m ai ni ng c l a i m s b e fo r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee Ma rs h a ll , 3 7 8 F .3 d a t 4 9 8 ; Ry a n v. O c c i de nt alPe t r o le um Cor p. , 5 7 7 F .2 d 2 9 8 , 3 0 0 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ), ab rogati on on ot hergro und s re c ognize d by F e d. S av. & Loan I

ns. Cor p. v. C r i bbs , 918 F. 2d 557, 559 ( 5th C i r. 199 0)
. C on sequ en t l y, w e concl u de that w e ha ve j u ri sdi ct i on over th is a p p e a l. III. Case: 09-10417 Document: 00511051205 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 10417

Allsup’s asserts that Appellants are coll ater ally estopped from seekin g joinder 2 of all plaintiffs in a single action due to the district court’s re jectionin Pro ctor of theirattempt to c ertifya class under § 21 6(b). Since w e c onclude that the di strict court di d not abuseit s discretion in denying

mass j oin der, we nee d not reachthis i ssue. 6 Rul i ngs o n t he j o i nde ro f pa r t i e s a r e r e vi e w e d f or ab u se o f

di s c r e t i o n. Jol ley v. W

elch , 904 F
. 2d 988 , 994 ( 5th C i r. 199 0)
. Finding n o abu se, w e af f i rm th e d istr ict co u rt’s re fu sa l to a ll o w A ce v e d o a n d th e h u n d re d s of o th e r p la in tiffs w ho ha ve j o i ne d he ri n t hi s l awsui tt o pr o c e e d t o ge t he ra ga i n stA l l sup’ s i n a s i ngl e a c t i o n. 2 Rul e 2 1 e s t ab l i s he s t hat , “ O n m o t i o n oron i t s ow n, t he co ur tm aya ta ny t i m e, on j u stterm s, a dd or drop a pa rt y. ” F ed R
. C iv. P
. 2 1. S i n ce R u l e 21 does
n otprovi de an y st an da rds by w h i ch di st ri ct courts can determ i n e i f parti es are m i sj oi n ed, court s hav e l ooked to R u le 20 forgu i da n ce. S ee Pa n A m . W o rld A irw ay s, In c. v. U.S
. D ist. Co u rt forCen t. D ist. of Ca l. , 52 3 F
. 2 d 10 7 3 , 10 7 9 ( 9 th C i r. 19 7 5 ). R u l e 2 0 (a)( 1 ) p rov i d es th a t: P e rs o n s m a yj o in in on e a ctio n a s p la in tiffs if: (A) t he y as serta ny r i ghtt o r e l i e f j o i nt l y, s e ve r al l y, o ri n t he a l t e r n a t iv e w i t h r e s p e c tt o o ra r i s i n go u to f t h e s a me t ran sact i on , occ u rren ce, or seri es of t ran sact i on s or o c c ur r e nc e s ; a nd (B ) a n yq u e s tio n o f la w o rfa c t c o m m o n t o a ll p la in tiffs w ill a r is e in th e a c tio n . F ed R
. C iv. P
. 20
. C ou rts h a ve de scribed R u l e 2 0 as cre a ti n g a tw o-pr on g test,
a l l o wi n gj o i n d e ro f

p l a i n t i f

fs w h e n ( 1 ) t h e i rc l a i ms a r i s e o u to f t h e “ s a me t r ansac t i on, occur ren c e, ors er i es of t r ansac t i ons oroc c urr enc es ” and w hen ( 2) th e r e is a t lea s t on e c o m m o n q u e s tio n o f la w o rfa c t lin k in ga ll cla im s . See , e . g. , A lex a n d erv. Fu lton Co u n ty , 2 0 7 F .3d 1 3 0 3 , 1 3 2 3 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ), over rule don ot h er groun d s as s t ate di n Man d ersv. L ee , 338 F
. 3d 130 4, 132 8 n
. 52 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 3 ); A

pp lew h i t e v. R ei chh ol dCh em s. , I n c. , 6 7 F. 3d5 71 , 5 74 n. 11 ( 5t h Ci r. Case: 09-10417 Document: 00511051205 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 10417

7 199 5)
. G en eral l y, as l on g as both pron gs of the t estare m et , “ perm i ssive j oi n der of p l a i n ti ffs . . . is a t th e op ti on of th e p l a i n ti ffs. ” A pp lew h ite , 6 7 F .3 d a t 5 7 4 ; see als o Uni t e d Mi ne W

or ke r s v. G i bbs , 383 U
. S
. 715 , 7 24 ( 196 6) (“ U n der t h e R u l es, t h e i m pu l se i s t ow ards en t ert ai n i n g t h e broadest possibl e sc ope of act i on consi st en tw i t h fai rnes s to th e parti es; j oi n der of cl ai m s, parti es and rem edi es i s stron gly en cou ra ge d
. ”)
. H ow ev er, ev en i f th i s test i s sa ti sfi ed , d i stri ct cou rts hav e t he di s c r e t i o n t o r e f us e j o i nde ri n the i nt e r e s to f a vo i di ng pr ej udi c e a nd d e la y , A pp lew h ite , 6 7 F .3 d a t 5 7 4 , e n s u r in gju d ic ia l e c o n o m y , Morri s v. Nort h rop G r um m an Co r

p. , 3 7 F. Supp
. 2 d 5 56 , 5 81 (E
. D
. N
. Y
. 1 99 9) , o rs af e gua r di ng p r in c ip le s o f fu n d a m e n ta l fa ir n e s s . Colem an v. Q u ak er O ats Co. , 232 F. 3d 1271, 1 2 9 6 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 )
. I n t hi s c a s e , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i d n o te n g a g e i n i t s o wn d is tin c t R u le 2 0 a n a ly s is , b u t r a th e r , o n th e b a s is o f its e a r lie r“s im ila r ly
s i t uat e d” a nal ys i s i n Proct or , fou n d tha t“becau se of t h e di ssi m i l ari t y of
e m p lo y e e s i tu a tio n s a n d fa c tu a l a lle g a tio n s , th is ca s e ca n n o t p r o c e e d a s . . . a com p a n y w i d e class a cti on . ” A cevedo an d h er f

el l ow A pp el l an t s c on t en d, how ever, t h at t h e di st ri ct court abu sed i t s di scr et i on i n not al l ow i n g t h ei r c l ai m s t o go f orw ard toget h er. Th ey not e t hati n em pl oym entdi sc r i m i n a ti on c as es , a num berof c our t s have h el d that “ al l egati on s of a ‘ pa t t ern or practi ce’of di scr i m i n ati on [by an em pl oyer]
m ay. . . s at i s f

y [ Rul e 20’ s ] s am e t r ans ac t i o n r e qui r e m e nt , ” t he r e bya l l o w i ng t he di s c r i m i nat i o n c l ai m s o f m ul t i pl e em pl oye e s t o b e t r i e d i n a s i ngl e a c t i o n. A lexan d er , 207 F. 3d at1323; se eals o Mo s ley v. G e n. Mo t o r s Cor p. , 497 F. 2d 1330, 1 3 3 3 -3 4 (8 t h C ir . 1 9 7 4 ). S im il a r ly , in th is c a s e , A p p e ll a n t s a s s e r tth a tA ll s u p ’s
m ai nt ai ns c om pany- w i de po l i c i es t hatenc our age w or ki ng of f t he c l oc k and t hat t h ese pol i ci es provi de su f f i ci en tcom m on al i t y am on g t h ei r cl ai m s to al l ow t h em to p r o c e e d to g e th e ru n d e rR u le 2 0
. H ow ever, assum i n g argu en do that A l l sup ’ s c om pa n y- w i de p ol i ci es al l ow A pp el l an ts to sati sf y R u l e 20’ s t ran sact i on t est , den yi n g j oi n der i n t h i s c ase Case: 09-10417 Document: 00511051205 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 10417

Aceve do and her fellow Appellants also assert that we should direct the district 3 court tocertifya class under § 216 (b), but they have waive d this argu ment. Appell ant s only raise this issue obliqu ely in their opening brief, if at all , and do not provide any br ie f in g in support of this argu ment until their reply brief. We have previou sly hel d th at “[a]n argument first supported in a reply brief comes too late because the appellee is not entitled thereafter to respond
. ” San ders v. U n u m L if e Ins. Co. of A m. , 5 5 3F .3 d 9 2 2 , 9 2 7( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). Furth er more , App ellantsdidnot prop erlyrais e thisargu me nt b elow . Their complaint does 8 w oul d s t i l lnotbe an abus e o f di sc r et i on. A s expl ai ned abo ve, di st r i c tc our t s have
c ons i der abl e di sc r et i on t o de ny j oi nderw hen i tw oul d not faci l i t at e j udi c i al
econom y an d w h en di f ferent w i t n esses an d do c um e nt ary pr o o f w o ul d be requ i red fo rp la in tiffs ’cla im s . S ee , e.g ., Mo rr is , 3 7 F . S u p p . a t 8 5 1
. W e h a v e p r e v io u s ly al l ow ed tw en t y- t w o sec u ri t y gu ards w h o w orked at t h e sam e petr ol eu m ref i n ery to jo in th e irF L S Acla im s u n d e rR u le 2 0 , see A l len v. A t l
. R i chfi el dCo. , 724 F. 2d 113 1, 113 2- 33, 113 5 ( 5th C i r. 198 4) , b u tA cevedo fai l s to ci t e a n y cases i n w h i ch
a g r o u p o f p la in tiffs e v e n re m o te lya s n u m e r o u s a s 8 0 0 w e r e a b le to jo in th e ir
c l ai m s . I n A lexan d er , u p o n w h ic h A c e v e d o r e lie s t o d e m o n s tr a te th a t jo in d e rin t hi s c as e s at i sf

i es R ul e 2 0, t he E l ev en t h C i r c ui tc onc l uded t hatj oi nderw as ap pr o pr i at e i n pa r tb e c aus e t he pl ai nt i f fs w e r e a l ls e e ki ng “ r e l i ef bas e d o n t he
s am e s e r i e s o f

di s c r i m i nat o r y t r ans ac t i on s b y t he s am e de c i s i o n- m ak e ri n t he
s a m e d e p a r tm e n t d u r in gth e s a m e s h o r t t im e fr a m e .” 2 0 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 4
. In th is
c as e, how eve r , t he pl ai nt i f fs w or k orh ave w or ked acr os s a n et w or k of m or e t han 3 0 0 s t o r e s , e a c h w it h it s o w n m a n a g e rr e s p o n s ib le fo rim p le m e n t in gA ll s u p ’s pol i c i es . As A l l sup’ s poi nt s out , cer t ai n pl ai nt i f fs s t at ed i n t hei rdepo si t i ons t hat th e yw e r e to ld b yth e irm a n a g e r s th a t w o r k in g o ff th e c lo c k w a s fo rb id d e n , w h ile
o th e r s in d ic a te d th a t t h e yw e r e o n lya s k e d to w o r k o ff th e clo c k b yce r ta in
m a n a ge rs a n d n ot oth ers. C on seq u en tl y, w ork i n g co n d i ti on s d o n ot ap p ea r to hav e b e e n uni f

o r m atal lA l l s up’ s st o r e s . The di s t r i c tc o ur tw as w i t hi n i t s w i de di s c r e t i o n t o co nc l ude t hatt r yi ng t he s e cl ai m s t o ge t he rw o ul d b e t o o c hal l e ngi ng l o gi s t i c al l y, give n t he dive r ge nt w o r ki ng c o ndi t i o ns at e ac h s t o r e an d t he di f ferent defen ses ap pl i cabl e t o each p l ai n t i f f ’ s c l ai m s. 3 Case: 09-10417 Document: 00511051205 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 10417

not seek certification of a representativeactionunder § 2 16(b); in stead, Appellants only b rou ght their cl aim s onth eir ownb eh alf
. 9 I V. A s n o te d a b o v e , sin c e R u le 2 1 e s ta b lis h e s th a t “ [m ]isjo in d e ro f p a r tie s is
n ota groun d f

or d i sm i ssi n g an a ct i on , ” the di st ri ctcou rterr ed w h en i tdi sm i ssed t h i s enti re act i on , rat h er t h an si m pl y di sm i ssi n g t h e cl aim s o f a n y m i sj oi n ed p la in tiffs . F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 1 ; se e a lso C lay v. Ma rtin , 509 F
. 2d 109 , 113 ( 2d C i r. 197 5) ( “ [ T ] h e presence of ‘ i m proper pa rt i es’[i s] an i n vali d ba si s f or di sm i ssalof [a ] c om pl ai n t
. M i sj oi n der .
. . does not j u st i f y such an ext rem e sanc tion .”) ; Sa b o ls ky v . Budz a no s ki , 457 F
. 2d 124 5, 124 9 ( 3d C i r. 197 2) ( “M i sj oi n der or
n o n -join d er of p a rti es i s n ot gr ou n d for d i sm i ssa l
. . . . T h e pro p er rem ed y in
c a s e o f m isjo in d e ris to g r a n t s e v e r a n c e o rd is m is s a l to th e im p r o p e rp a r tyif it
w i l lnot prej u di ce anysubstanti alri gh t
. ” )
. C on sequ en t l y, w e revers e t h e di st ri ct cou rt’ s d i sm i ssa lof A cev ed o’ s cl a i m s an d rem a n d this case to t h e d i stri ct cou rt. A d d itio n a lly , sin c e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t A p p e lla n ts co u ld jo in th e ir cl ai m s on a st ore- by-sto re b a si s, an d A l l sup ’ s does not contestt h i s r u l i n g on ap pe al , t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts ho ul d a l s o r e i ns t at e t he c l ai m s o f a ny Appe l l antw ho
w orked at t h e sam e st ore as A cevedo. V. C on seq u en tl y, w e A F F IR M th e dist ri ct cou rt’ s ru l i n g th a t allA p p ell a n ts
c a n n o t jo in in a s in g le a c tio n a g a in s t A lls u p ’ s , R E V E R S E its d is m is s a l o f th is
en t i re act i on , an d R E M A N D t h i s c ase to t h e di st ri ctcourtf or f u rt h er pr o c e e di ngs c o ns i s t e ntw i t h t hi s o pi ni o n. Case: 09-10417 Document: 00511051205 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/15/2010