Source: https://calwages.com/tag/supreme-court-of-the-united-states/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:57:54+00:00

Document:
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an FLSA collective action was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the lead plaintiff ignored the employer’s offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Genesis Healthcare Corp., et al. v. Symczyk, No. 11-1059, 569 U.S. __ (April 16, 2013).
Plaintiff brought a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and Genesis Healthcare Corp. promptly made an offer of judgment under F.R.C.P. 68. The District Court found that the Rule 68 offer fully satisfied plaintiff’s claim and that no other individuals had joined her suit, and it dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Third Circuit reversed.
Reaching the question on which we granted certiorari,we conclude that respondent has no personal interest in representing putative, unnamed claimants, nor any other continuing interest that would preserve her suit from mootness. Respondent’s suit was, therefore, appropriately dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In a ruling today with substantial implications for wage & hour class actions, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that a putative class representative’s stipulation that he and the class would seek less than $5 million in damages does not defeat federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450, 586 U.S. __ (Mar. 19, 2013).
The question presented concerned a class-action plaintiff who stipulates, prior to certification of the class, that he, and the class he seeks to represent, will not seek damages that exceed $5 million in total. Does that stipulation remove the case from CAFA’s scope?
We do not agree that CAFA forbids the federal court to consider, for purposes of determining the amount in controversy, the very real possibility that a nonbinding, amount-limiting, stipulation may not survive the class certification process. This potential outcome does not result in the creation of a new case not now before the federal court. To hold otherwise would, for CAFA jurisdictional purposes, treat a nonbinding stipulation as if it were binding, exalt form over substance, and run directly counter to CAFA’s primary objective: ensuring “Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance.” §2(b)(2), 119 Stat. 5. It would also have the effect of allowing the subdivision of a $100 million action into 21 just-below-$5-million state-court actions simply by including nonbinding stipulations; such an outcome would squarely conflict with the statute’s objective.
Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. prevailed against plaintiff employee on various wage and hour causes of action including failure to pay overtime and failure to provide breaks. Plancich v. United Parcel Service, Inc., — Cal. Rptr. 3d —-, 2011 WL 3506066, No. E050631 (4th Dist. Aug. 11, 2011). UPS won on all six counts, and the trial court awarded costs but then granted Plaintiff Plancich’s motion to strike costs. Id. *1. The Fourth District reversed the order granting the motion to strike costs, holding that a prevailing employer may recover costs in a wage suit.
Plancich worked for UPS as an on-road supervisor. Id. He asserted in his complaint that he worked more than eight hours a day and more than 40 hours a week. Id. He also alleged that UPS misclassified him as exempt under the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions. Id. The jury found Plancich was an exempt employee. Id. As to the unfair competition cause of action, the trial court found in favor of UPS. Id. The trial court ordered that UPS recover its costs from Plancich, in an amount to be determined. Id.
The Northern District of California granted defendant’s motion to decertify a conditional FLSA class in Wong v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), No. C-07-2446 MMC, 2010 WL 3833952 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010). Plaintiff HSBC loan officers, allege that HSBC improperly classified them as exempt under the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and, consequently, violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime compensation. Id. *1. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for an order conditionally certifying, for purposes of the FLSA, a class of persons who, as of May 7, 2004, had been employed by HSBC as loan officers within the United States. Id. Notice of the action was sent to the class, and 120 class members filed consent forms, joining the action as plaintiffs. Id.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected defendant’s argument that Stolt-Nielson preempted Gentry, and the court held that a class-wide arbitration agreement was unenforceable as against an unpaid wage and overtime plaintiff. Mathias v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Civ. No. S-10-1476 LKK/KJM, 2010 WL 3715059 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) (slip op.).

References: v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v.