## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09
- 2020 D EB ORAH A. A LVAREZ, et al., P la intif f-A pp ella nts, v. C ITY OF C HI CAGO, a M uni ci palCo r po r at i o n, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06- cv-4639

—Wi ll iam J. H ibb ler , Judg e. N o. 09
- 2021 A LEXA ND ER C ARABALL O, et al., P la intif f-A pp ella nts, v. C ITY OF C HI CAGO, a M uni ci palCo r po r at i o n, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07- cv-2807

—Wi ll iam J. H ibb ler , Judg e.
A RGUED N OVE MBE R 4, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AY 21, 20102 N os. 09
- 2020 & 09
- 2021 B efore C UDAH Y, F LA UM, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . This i s the conso l i dated ap peal f ro m the dism i ssa l o ftwo l aw sui ts bro ught bypara m edi cs i n Chicag o. The pl ai nti ff s claim thatthe Cityo fChica go sys tem i cal l y m i scal cul ate d thei r ove rt i m e pay in a tot al of ten d iffe r e n t w ays. N ot allclai m s, how ever, are c om m on to all p lain t i f f s . R ely in g on ou r d ec isio n in Joni t e s v. Exe l on Corp
. , 522 F.3d 72 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) , the dist ri ct c ourtdi sm i sse d the pl ai nti ff s’ co l l ecti ve acti on as “h op elessly heter ogen ou s” an d directe d the p lai nt iffs to proce ed t hro ugh arbi tr ati on. Because the nam ed p l a i n t i ff s h a ve the r i g h tt o p r o c e e d i n d i v i d u a l l y, we re ve rs e t h e jud gm en t o f d ism iss al.
I . B a c kg r o und O n Aug us t 28 , 2 00 6, a g r o up o ffi fty
- f o ur par ame d i c s e mpl o y e d b y th e C h i c a g o F i r e D e p a r t me nt fi l ed a t w o-c ou nt co l l ecti ve acti on a gai nst the Ci ty of C h ica go , alleg i n g t h at it w illfu lly faile d to p ro p er ly c om p en sa te th em for ov er tim e, in vio l a t i o n of th e F air L abor Stan d ard s A ct (“FL SA ”), 2 9 U
. S. C
. §§ 201-219 (2006 ). Se eAl varez v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , N o . 0 6 -c v-4639 (N
. D
. I ll
. ). The dist ri ct courtgr anted the A lva rez pl ai nti ff s’ m oti on t o begin dis tr ibuting no ti ces ofthe acti on t o pros pecti ve pla i nti ff s a nd pro vi ded them with 6 0 days i n w hi ch to add addit i onalpl ai nti ff s. M or e than thr ee hu n dred additi onalpl ai nti ff s o pted i n. On the City ’ s m oti on, the dist ri ct cour t d i sm i sse d s e v e r a l o fth e m b e c a u s e th e 6 0
- d a y d e a d l i n e h a d p a s s e d. Fouro ftho se pla i nti ff s, al ong w i th ei ght ne w pl ai n tiff s,N os. 09
- 2020 & 09
- 2021 3 t h en filed a n ew ac tio n . S e eC a r a b a l l o v . C i tyo f C h i c ago , N o. 07
- cv- 2807( N
. D. I l l )
. The C araballo plaintiff s assert the sam e cl ai m s as th e A lva rez pl ai nti ff s, but did not sty l e thei r l aw sui t a s a co l l ecti ve a cti on o r see k c l ass certifi cation
. On Sept em ber 13, 2007, th e d istri ct co u rt c o ns o l i da t e d Alva r ez a nd C araballo
. On June 6 , 20 08, the C araballo pl ai nti ff s m ov ed f or su m m ary ju d gm en t. I n th eir m otion for su m m ary j ud gm ent, the C araballo pl ai nti ffs i denti fi ed a t ota l o fte n subcl aim s under FLSA
. Bri efl y s um m ar i zed, thes e cl ai m s a re : 1. Paym ents excl ud ed f r om em p l oye es’ “r egul ar r a t e ” f o rde t e r mi ni ngo v e r t i me c o mpe ns a t i o n. FLSA r equi re s o ver tim e at the r ate o fo ne- and-ah alf t im es an em p loy ee ’s “ re gu lar rat e,” w h ich is d efin ed as “a ll rem u n er at ion for e m p lo y m e n t p aid to . . . a n em p l o y ee , ” wi ths ev er ale xc ept i o ns i ncl ud i n g “ paym ents to an em plo yee wh i ch ar e no t m ad e a s c om p en sati on forhis h ou rs of em p loy m en t.” The param edi cs i denti fy s i x types o fpay that they bel i eve w er e w ro ngl y excl ud ed f ro m their “r egul ar ra te .” a. D uty ava i l abil i ty pay. Thi s i s a qua r te r l y l um p- su m paym ent o f$1 75 m ade to al l em er gencym ed i cal ser vi ces em plo yee s who w or k in 24-hour shi fts pur su an t to the c o l l ec ti ve barg aini nga g r ee m en t (“C B A ”). b. Fit ness pay. A lso m ad e pu rs u an t to th e C B A , t h is i s a l um p -su m p aym ent o f$3 50 to em plo yee s w ho m eetcer tai n physi calqual i fi cati ons m eas ured4 N os. 09
- 2020 & 09
- 2021 by a voluntar y fi tness te st, wh i ch em plo yee s m ay tak e y ear l y. c . S p ec ialt y p ay . S pec i al typa y i s pr o vi d ed unde r the C B A to p ar am ed ics wh o ar e a l so h az ar d ou s m at er ials techni ci ans a nd cer ti fi ed dri ver s. The co m pensati on i s equa l t o 5 % o fthe e m ployee ’ s an nua l s al ar y a nd i s pai d quarter l y o n a pr o ra ta basi s. d. U nif orm pay. Pursuant to the CBA , al l para m edi cs re cei ve tw o l um p-sum paym en ts du ri ng the co urse ofa yea r “f orcl eanin g an d m ai ntenance ofdres s u n iform s, w or k c lot h es an d p ro te c tiv e c lot h in g.” e. A ct i ng pay. I fa pa r amedi c te m po r ar il y wor k s i n a hi gherr ank, he r ecei ves additi onalco m pensati on known as act i ng pay. f . D r i vi ng pay. P a r a med i c s r e c e i v e a ddi t i onal com pensati on, kno w n as dri vi ng pay, i ftheydri ve th e a m b u lan c e. 2. Tre at m ent ofco nti nu i n g edu cat i on t i m e. Plaintiff s m ake two ar gum ents re gar ding the way the ci ty ha ndl ed ti m e spe nti n c o nt i nui nge duca ti o n. Fi rs t, pla i nti ff s a rgue thatthe ci ty im p ro perl y c ounted tim e sp en t in cont inu ing ed uc ation as “h ou rs w or ked” f or pu rpos es of cal cul ati ng the r egul arr ate , si nce conti nuing educati on was co m pensated o n an annual basi s. Becau se the Ci ty cal cul ate d plai nti ff s’ r egul arr at e ( an d, i n tur n, o ve r ti m e r at e) b y di vi di ng pa r a med i c s ’ s a l a r y b y the n umb e r o fh o ur s wo r k e d, an i ncre ase i n “hour s work ed” decr eas es the r ate at w hi ch pl ai nti ff s a re co m pensate d foro ver ti m e. Sec on d , pl ai nti ff s a rgue thatthe ci ty coul d not useN os. 09
- 2020 & 09
- 2021 5 paym ents m ade f orco nti nuing educati on as c r e di t s a g a i ns to v e r t i me o we d. 3. Tre at m ent ofaddit i onal shifts. The pl ai nti ff s a l so ar g ue d tha t th e Ci tyc o ul d no t co untho ur s spe nt w or ki ng addit i onalshi fts as “hours worke d” f or pu rp ose s o fdeter m i ni ng the r egul arr ate and that the Ci ty w as not perm i tte d to use th em a s cr edi ts a g a i ns to v e r t i me o we d. 4. H um an comp utat i on err or s. The pl ai nti ff s a rgued th at th e c ity c o m m itt ed va riou s h u m an err or s in c alc u lat in g t h eir ov er tim e c om p en sa tio n . 5. Sala ry method ofco m pu t i ng w eek l y r egul arr at es. Pl ai nti ff s a rgue thatthe ci ty vi ol ate d t he FLSA by usi ng the fixed sa l ar y m etho d to deter m i ne r egul ar ra tes . The Ci tyfi l ed a cros s- m o ti o n f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t aga i nst a l l part i es, i ncl ud i n g the A lva rez p lain tiffs . In add i ti on t o re sponding on the m erits , d efendant m ove d to d ec er tify p lain tiffs ’ c olle c tiv e a c tio n an d d ism iss th eir c laim s o n t h e g ro u n d s t h at th ey w er e “ h op ele ss ly he te r o g en o us . ” On M ar ch2 0, 2 00 9, the di st r i ctc ou rt gr anted the ci ty’ s m ot ion f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent a gai nst al l pl ai nti ff s, r eas oni ng tha t the pl ai nt iff s were not si m i l ar l y s i tu at ed be ca us e ea chpl aint i ffr ai se d a di ff er en t com binat ion of th e ten su bclaim s, su ch th at t h e p lai nt iffs coul d not be readi l y di vi ded i nto hom oge nous s ubgro up s. The dis tr i ct c ou rt al so note d that a rbi tr ati on pursuant to the col l ecti ve bar gai ni ng ag re em ent, wh i l e no t m andator y, m i ght be a m or e effi ci ent w ay to re sol ve th e p aram edi cs’ c l a i ms. Th e c o ur t di d no t r e a c h the mer i t s ofthe ten subcl ai m s rai sed by the pla i nti ff s. I nstea d, i t di sm i sse d6 N os. 09
- 2020 & 09
- 2021 th e cl ai m s o fa l l pl ainti ff s, wi th o utpr ej udi ce , a nd di r ec te d the m t o pur su e arbi tr at i o n.
II . A n alysis The F ai r Labo r S ta nda r ds Act g i ve s em p l o y ee s th e ri ght t o b rin g thei r FLSA cl ai m s thro ugh a “ col l ecti ve ac tio n ” o n b e h alf ofth em se lve s a n d ot h er “s im ilar ly si tuate d” em plo yee s. 29 U
. S. C. § 216(b) (20 06)
. A co l l ecti ve acti on i s s i m i l ar to , but dist i nct fro m , the typi calcl ass ac tio n br ou gh t p u rs u an t t o Fe d . R. C iv. P . 2 3. T h e p rin c ip le d iffer en c e is th at p l a i n tiffs w h o w ish to be inc lu d ed in a c olle c tiv e a c t ion m u st affirm at ive ly op t-in to th e s u it byfi l i nga wri tt enc o ns en t wi ththe c o ur t, whi l e th e typica l c l ass act i on i ncl ud es al l pote nti alpl ai nti ff s that m ee t t h e c las s d efin itio n an d d o n otop t-o u t. Th e Ci ty

— and the di str i ct c ourt ’ s o pini on

— re lies h ea vily o n o urde ci si o n i n Joni t e s v. Exel on Corp
. , 52 2 F
. 3d 721 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. I n Jo nites , w e affirm ed the d ism issal of a co l l ect i ve a ct i o n b r o ug hto n b eh al fo fmor e th ana thousand l i nem an and other hourl y w or ker s e m plo yed by Com m onw eal th Ediso n. The Jo nites pla i nti ff s a l l ege d th at tw o t yp es of p u rp or te d ly o ff-d u ty tim e w er e re ally com pensabl e work
. The fi rs t invol ved C om Ed’s “ cal l

- out” pol i cy, wh i ch r eq u i re d off

- du ty w or ker s t o re spond to at lea st 35 % of th e c alls from t h eir em p loy er for a d d iti onalm anpow ero n an e m er gency bas i s. The fre quency o f th e s e c a l l

- o u t s v a r i e d w i d e l y a m o n g w o r k e r s ; s o me w er e ca l l ed as often a s o nce e very five and a hal fdays o n a ve r ag e, a nd o th er s no m ore t ha n o nc e a m o nth. The em plo yee s t oo k the posi ti on th at t hey were enti tl ed to be p aid for “som e o f t h e tim e” d uring w hich they w ereN os. 09
- 2020 & 09
- 2021 7
su bj ec t to c al l, wi ththe a m o untt o b e det er m i ne d b y the tr i e r o ff a c t . T he s e c o nd c ha l l e ng e wa s t o the l unch p olic y, w h ich re q u i r e d w or ke rs atj ob sit es to rem ain aw ake and be al er t f ortr espass i ng a n d t he the ft o fto ol s. H o w e v e r, o n l y p a r to fth e c l a s s w o r k e d th e d a y t i me shi ft, to w hi ch the l unch poli cy appli ed. W e hel d that a s to both ofthes e cl ai m s, the pu rp or ted cl ass was “hopelessly he terogen ou s” bec au se li abili ty w ou ld requ ire si g ni fi ca nti ndi vi dualf ac t- fi ndi nga nd many o fthe w or ke rs h ad n o c on c eiv ab le c laim atall. Id. a t7 2 5
- 2 6
. We fu rther hel d that the i nd i vi du alpl ai nti ff s m ust e i ther fi l e ind i vi du alsui ts, cr eat e ho m oge nous cl ass es, o r ask the uni on t o fi l e g ri evance pro ceedi ngs under the c ol lectiv e b ar ga i n i n g ag re em en t. Id. at7 26
. Be ca us e th e pu r po r t e d c l a s s h e r e i s ma de u p o fp l a i nt i ff s wh o e a ch h av e a di ff er ent c om bi nati on o fsubcl ai m s, defendants ar gu e t h at it is sim ilar ly h et e r o g en ou s a n d w as p ro p er ly di smi ss ed i n f av o r o fa rbi tr at i o n. Ap p e l l a n t s a r g u e th a tth i s c a s e i s d i ff e r e n tfr o m Jo nites b ec au se th e pla in tiffs h er e ap p ea r t o b e sim ilar ly situat ed w ith regard to i nd ivi d ua l su bclaim s, bu t are he te r o g en o us o nl y b ec au se the r e are se ve r aldi ff er en t com b in ati ons oftho se subcl ai m s. Fo r exam ple , wh ether an y g i ve n pa r amedi c i s en ti tl ed to r ec o ve r o n the unif or m pay theo ry d ep ends on the l ega l questi on o f w hethersuch p ay should have bee n i ncl ud ed i n the base rate, a nd the s i m pl e f ac tu alque st i o n o fwhethe r the parti cul arp ar am edi c r ecei ved uni f or m pay. I nstea d of d ism issi ng their clai m s as het erogen ou s, p lai nt iffs ar gue, the dist ri ct c ourtsho uld have al l owed them to sp lit th eir cla im s in to h om og en ou s s u b c las se s. Se e, e . g. , Frave l v. County of

La ke, No
. 2 : 0 7
- c v - 2 5 3 , 2 0 0 8 WL 270 47448 N os. 09
- 2020 & 09
- 2021 ( N
. D. I nd
. J uly7, 20 08) ( al l owing p l ai nti ff s t o proce ed col l ecti vel y a nd g rouping the pl ai nti ff s into f our dist i nct su b c l a s s e s de pe nd i ngo n whi c h the o r y o fl i a b i l i ty ap p li ed to the m )
. Pl aint i ff s su g g es t th athe r e, a s i n Fra vel , “[ r]e so lvi ng co m m on quest i ons as a cl ass , ev en thr ough th e addi ti o na l mechan i sm o fs ub- cl as se s, r emai ns i nherent l y m or e e ffi c ien t” than spl i tti ng the act i on i nto f o urs e pa r a t e c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o ns o r a l l o wi ngi nd i v i du al c laim s b y e ac h p lain tiff. Id. at * 3. The di st r i ctc o ur t appe ar ed to a g r ee wi thth e pl ainti ff s’ c ha r ac te r i za ti o n o fthe i r s ubc l ai m s, no tingthat the City ’ s l i abi l i ty to any par ti cul arpl ai nti ffo n any gi ven su bc l ai m tur ns onl y upo n a s i ng l e uni f o r m po l i cya nd w h e t he r that p oli cy im p acte d that pa rticular plaintiff
. H owever, the dist ri ct c ourtr efused to adopt the Fra vel a p p r o a c h, c o n c l u di ngth a tth e n u mb e r o fs u b c l a i ms m ade the pla i nti ff s “ hopel ess l y het er ogenous” and that arbi tr ati on would be m or e e ffi ci ent. A di str i ct c ourthas w id e d iscr eti on t o m anage co l l ectiv e a c tio n s. Se eHof

f m ann - La Rochev. Sp e r l i ng, 493 U
. S. 16 5, 1 71 ( 19 89 )
. H ow eve r, i t appe ar s th athe r e th e di s t r i c t c o ur t may ha v e mi s t a k e nl y r e a d Jo nites t o forb id it f r o m a d o ptinga s ubc l ai m a ppr o ac h mer el y b ec au se the va r i ety o fsub cl ai m s r en der s th e cl as s “h et er o g en o us . ” The probl em with the Jo nites c l a s s , h o we v e r, wa s n o tthat the pl ai ntiffs had di ff er ent s ubcl ai m s, but ra therthat d et er m in in g w h et h er an y g ive n p lain tiff h ad a via b le cl ai m de pen ded o n a de ta i l ed, f ac t- spe ci fi c i nqui r y, a nd m an y p lain tiffs lac ke d an y c on c eiv ab ly v iab le c laim alt og et h er . Jo nites , 522 F.3d at72 3, 72 5-2 6; s e e also M o o neyN os. 09
- 2020 & 09
- 2021 9

The re m ay also be c as es wher e des pi t e c om m on que s t i ons 1 as to l iabil ity, the rem edy i s so ta il ored to eac h parti cular p la in tiff th a t a co lle ct iv e a ct io n is in a p p ro p ri a te . C f
. An d r e ws v. C he vyCha s eBan k, 5 4 5 F
. 3 d 5 7 0 , 5 7 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( h o l di ng thatTruth in Lending A ctcl aim s f or re sc is si on m ay not, as a m at t er of la w, be br oughtas a c l as s ac t i on)
. I n An d r e ws , how ever, the s tatutory res ci ss ion re m edy a t i ss ue requir ed “un windi ng the t ra ns ac t i on i n i t s e nt i re t y a nd .
. . r etur ni ng bor ro wers t o the pos i t i on the y o ccupi ed pr i or t o the loan agree m ent. ” Id
. at 57 3. Th is ind iv id u alize d equ itab le re m edy pos ed m or e s i gni fi c antobs t ac l es t o c l as s r es ol ut i on tha n th e cl a i m s for d am ag es her e. Ifthe p ara m ed ics in this li ti gati on ulti m atel y recover, thei r rec overy w il l be d ete rm ined b y the a p p lication of m ath em atica l f or m u lae c o m m o n to all c l as s m em ber s , al thoughthe s pec i fi c var i abl es ( nu m b er o f ho u rs w or k ed , ho u rly w ag e, etc. ) w ill va ry f r o m ind iv id u al to ind ivi dual
. How eve r, the i ndi vi dual i ze d f ac t s wil l l i ke ly com e i n th e form of un d ispu ted p ay ro ll and tim e reco rd s. M or eo v er, ifnec ess a r y , F ed
. R
. C iv
. P
. 53 (a)( 1)(B)(i i) (co n tin u ed ...) v. Ar am co Se r vi ces Co. , 54 F. 3d 1207, 1214-15 (5th C ir. 19 95 ), ove r r ul e d on othergroun ds b y Des e r tPal ac e, Inc . v. C osta , 53 9 U.S
. 90 (2003) ( affi rm i ng decer ti fi cati on o f c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n whe re e mpl o y e e s wh o b r o ughtADEA claim w er e su bj ec t to “ va st l y di spa r at e empl o y m en t situati o ns ” an d de f en se was l i k el y t o c en te r o n purport ed re aso nabl e f acto rs o th erthan age speci fi c to ea ch empl o y ee )
. I fc o m m o n qu est i o ns pr edo m i na te , the pl aint i ff s m ayb e si m il arlys i tu at ed ev entho ug h the re cove ryo fany gi ven pl ai nti ffm ay be det er m i ned by onl y a subse t o ftho se com m on quest i ons. 110 N os. 09
- 2020 & 09
- 2021

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 au tho rizes th e d istrict cou rt to ap p oin t a sp ec i a l m aster to
“ re so lv e a d iffic u lt c o m p u ta tio n o f d a m a g es .” T h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e w h e th e r a rb i t r a t i o n o f th e s e F L S A c l a i ms 2 i s pe r m i s s ibl e un de r the terms o fthe pa r a m e di c s ’ c ol l e c t i ve bargaining agreem ent. W e need not reach this i ss ue, as i t has no bea ri ng o n whe the r the p lain t i ff s ar e i n f ac ts i m i l ar l y s i t uat ed o r whethe r the y ha ve the r i ghtt o pr oc ee d i ndi vi dual l y. S i m i l ar l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t m i st ak en l y c o m par ed th e effi ci en cyo fpr o ce edingthr o ug h s ubc l ai m s o nl y t o the per ce i ve d e ffi ci en cyo fa rbi tr at i o n. Pl aint i ff s ha ve the 2 right to proc eed i nd ivi d ua ll y and m ay be ab le to form m or e t ailo re d cla ss es . See Jo nites , 52 2 F
. 3d at 72 5 (not i ng tha ta c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i ninga g r e em e ntc a nn o tp r e e mpt or w aive a w orker’s ri gh t to a j ud ic ial rem ed y for FL SA vi ol ati ons)
. Thus, i fi t a pp ear s pl ai nti ff s a re pre pared to proceed i ndi vi dual l y o r thr o ug h s epa r at e cl as se s, the dist ri ct c ourtm ust co nsi der whether these o ther me c h a n i s ms f o r j u d i c i a l r e s o l u t i o n o fth e i r c l a i ms ar e m or e o r l ess effici ent than a c ol l ecti ve acti on c om p ris ed of va riou s s u b c laim s. C f. Frav el , sup ra . In Jo nites , the c i r cumst an ce s su g g es te d th at pl aint i ff s ha d “ no sto m ach f orpro ceedi ng ca se b y case. ” Id. at72 6. H er e, the tw el ve C araballo p lai nti ff s fi l ed thei r com pla i nt as i nd i vi du al s a nd m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent a s i ndi vi dual s. I nde ed, the r e i s nothinga ppar en t f r o m the re c or d t o i n d ica te th at th e fift y-fo u r n am ed p lain tiffs in A lva rez were unw i l l i ng to pro ceed i nd i viduall y. Yet the di str i ct c ourt d ism i sse d thei r cl ai m s in f avo r of arbi tr ati on w ithout consi deri ng wh etheri t was be tte r toN os. 09
- 2020 & 09
- 2021 11

T he C ity a rg u es tha t pla intiff s hav e w aiv ed this arg u m en t. 3 But i n r es pons e t o the Ci t y’ s c l ai m , i n i ts c ro s s - m ot i on f or sum m ary jud g m en t, tha t the co llectiv e actio n w as “h op elessly hete rogenous , ” the C a ra b a llo plai nti ff s argued thatthe y w ere pro c ee di ng i ndi vi dual l y a nd thatthi s ar gum en tw as thus i nappl i c abl e t o the m . Bec au s e ofthe c our s e ofl i t i gat i on b elow , p lain tiffs d id no t ha v e an op p or tu nity to p resen t this argum ent m ore full y. W ith only the C ar abal l o pl ai nt i ff s ’ m ot i on f or s um m ary j ud gm ent befor e i t, the dist ri ctcourt add res se d both the A l varez a nd C a ra b a llo act ions , deem ed the C a ra b a llo pla in tiffs to be proceeding as a cl ass , and no t onl y d ece rt ifie d b oth c l as s es bute nt er ed i t s j udgm en tofdi s m i s s al without prej ud ic e that s am e day. W hil e plai nti ff s do not ar gue that t re at i ng C ar ab all o as a co llectiv e actio n w as erro r (ind eed , it appe ar s thatatl ea s ton e pl ai nt i ffat t em pt ed t o o pti n t o the C ar abal l o ac t i on) , thi s pr oc edur al pos t ur e does e xpl ai n why th e r i g h tt o p r o c e e d i n di v i du a l l y wa s n o ta dd r e s s e d b e l o w. add re ss si xty- fi ve i nd i vid u alcl ai m s o r one col l ecti ve acti on co m pri sed o fte n subcl ai m s. Fi nal l y, the dist ri ct c ourt e rred wh en i t di sm i sse d the c l ai m s o fthe nam ed pla i nti ff s. W h en a co l l ecti ve acti on i s dece rt i fi ed, i t r eve rt s t o one or m or e indi vi du al ac tio n s on b eh alf of th e n am ed p lain tiffs
. SeeH ipp v. Lib er ty N at ’ l Li f eIns . Co. , 2 52 F
. 3d 12 08 , 1 21 8 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 1) ( ci ting M o o ney, 54 F .3d at12 13 -14 ); see a l s o F o x v. T yso n F o o ds, Inc. , 5 19 F
. 3d 12 98 , 1 30 1 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 8) ( affi r m i ng decert i fi cati on o fan F LSA co l l ecti ve a c tion, di sm i ssa l o fthe o pt- i n pl aint i ffs, a nd s ev er an ce o fe ac h o fthe na m ed plaintiff s into sep arate ind ivi d ua l ac tions). 3 Defen dan ts do no t ar g ue tha t arbi tr ati o n un derthe col l ecti ve bar gai ni ng agr eem ent preem pts l i ti gat i ng the se12 N os. 09
- 2020 & 09
- 2021 iss u es in fed er al cou rt . P lain tiffs ar e en tit led , at m i n im um , to pursue th eir cl ai m s i nd i vi du al l y. W hether th ey are p er m itt ed to d o s o in on e a c tio n or s ev er al is com m i tte d to the s ound d i scr etio n ofthe dist ri ct c ourt, butm i sj o i nde r ofpar ti es i s ne ve r a g r o und f o r di smi ss i ng an ac tio n . See Fe d . R. Ci v. P. 21
. W e there f or e r eve rs e the di str i ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa l o fth e nam ed pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s in both the A lva rez a nd C araballo act i ons. Si fti ng thr ough the subcl ai m s o fea ch of th e m yr i ad p lai nt iffs i s an u ne nv iable task. Bu t plaintiff s are n on et h ele ss en tit led to th eir d ay in co u rt . M or eo ve r, it appears that here , co m m on quest i ons predom i nate w i th re gar d to each t h eory ofl i abi l i ty. The part i es have al re ady fi l ed cr oss - m ot i ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the m er i ts of these com m on questi ons. A fter the d istr i ct cour t dete rm i ne s the va l i dity o fthes e s ubcl ai m s, cal cul ati on o fea ch pl ai nti f f’ s a w ar d (if a n y) wil l be l ar gel y m echani cal
. On re m and, gi ven that the cl ai m s o f the n a med p l a i nt i ff s wi l l s t i l l b e b e f o r e i t, the di str i ct co ur t s ho ul d c o ns i derwhethe r a c o l l ec ti ve a ct i o n mi g ht be the m osteffi ci ent j ud i ci alr eso l ution o fthi s m att er aft er all.
I I I . Concl usio n W e R EV ERSE the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d ism i ssa l o fthe nam ed pl aint i ff s’ c l ai m s an d R EMA ND f o r pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.
5- 21- 10