Court Opinion

ID: 9840449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 17:00:37.838631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:30.307717
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                           _______________

                                 No. 22-2714
                               _______________

                      CHRISTINE LYNN FINKBEINER,
           individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

                                              Appellants

                                        v.

  GEISINGER CLINIC; GEISINGER MEDICAL CENTER; GEISINGER HEALTH
PLAN; GEISINGER LEWISTOWN HOSPITAL; GEISINGER WYOMING VALLEY
      MEDICAL CENTER; GEISINGER SYSTEM SERVICES; GEISINGER
  BLOOMSBURG HOSPITAL; GEISINGER COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER;
GEISINGER POTTSVILLE CANCER CENTER; GEISINGER HAZELTON CANCER
 CENTER; GEISINGER MAIL ORDER PHARMACY; WEST SHORE ADVANCED
 LIFE SUPPORT SERVICES INC.; and GEISINGER SYSTEM FINANCIAL EDITS

                               _______________

               On Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                     (District Court No. 4:21-cv-01903)
                District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann
                              _______________

              Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                              On June 9, 2023

        Before: HARDIMAN, AMBRO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

                          (Filed: September 18, 2023)
                                      _______________

                                         OPINION *
                                      _______________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

         Over 100 employees of Geisinger Clinic and its affiliates (collectively

“Geisinger”) filed a complaint challenging Geisinger’s employment policies. Plaintiffs’

counsel later filed an amended complaint listing Christine Finkbeiner as the only named

plaintiff, but the District Court neither dismissed nor dropped the other plaintiffs from the

case. The Court ultimately dismissed Finkbeiner’s claims with prejudice, and Finkbeiner

now appeals that decision. But the Court never dismissed the remaining plaintiffs’

claims, meaning we lack appellate jurisdiction and must dismiss this appeal.

         Plaintiffs sued Geisinger in November 2021 and twice amended their complaint

before Geisinger responded. The Second Amended Complaint names 106 plaintiffs

(including Finkbeiner) who generally allege that Geisinger unlawfully required them to

submit to COVID-19 testing or vaccination as a condition of employment.

         After the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief, 1 Geisinger

quickly moved for summary judgment. The Court denied Geisinger’s motion without

prejudice. Plaintiffs’ counsel then filed a letter advising the District Court of his intent to

“[a]mend the Complaint to a Rule 23 representative class action lawsuit in which [he

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding
precedent.
1
    See Federoff v. Geisinger Clinic, 571 F. Supp. 3d 376 (M.D. Pa. 2021).

                                                2
would] name one plaintiff rather than 106 or 107 plaintiffs.” 2 The Court granted leave to

file an amended complaint, but plaintiffs neither sought nor obtained leave to dismiss the

remaining plaintiffs from the case during this period.

         Plaintiffs’ counsel then filed a Third Amended Complaint naming Finkbeiner as

the sole plaintiff and class representative for a putative class of similarly situated

employees. Geisinger timely moved to dismiss, arguing that (1) the Third Amended

Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and (2) in addition to

Finkbeiner’s claims, the claims of the other 105 plaintiffs named in the Second Amended

Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. In response, plaintiffs simultaneously

opposed Geisinger’s motion and moved to voluntarily dismiss the entire action without

prejudice.

         On August 26, 2022, the District Court dismissed Finkbeiner’s Third Amended

Complaint with prejudice and denied plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal “as

moot.” 3 This appeal followed.

         Neither party disputes appellate jurisdiction, but we must examine it sua sponte. 4

The parties argue for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which permits appeal of “all

final decisions of the district courts[.]” But the District Court’s August 26, 2022, order

was not a “final decision” because it did not dismiss “all the claims of all the parties” to

2
    Dist. Ct. Docket 38.
3
    Finkbeiner v. Geisinger Clinic, 623 F. Supp. 3d 458 (M.D. Pa. 2022).
4
    In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., 288 F.3d 83, 88 n.5 (3d Cir. 2002).

                                                3
this action. 5 While the District Court unambiguously dismissed all of Finkbeiner’s

claims with prejudice, it has not dismissed the claims of any other plaintiff.

         First, the Court did not dismiss or drop any plaintiff from the case before August

26, 2022. Geisinger moved for summary judgment and objected to the dismissal of any

plaintiff without prejudice, so plaintiffs could not voluntarily dismiss their claims without

a court order. 6 Plaintiffs’ counsel did not request the dismissal of any plaintiff until his

belated motion to dismiss the entire action, which the District Court denied. 7

         Second, the District Court’s August 26, 2022, opinion and order analyzed and

dismissed only Finkbeiner’s claims in the Third Amended Complaint. Both plaintiffs and

Geisinger argue that the District Court dismissed the claims of all 106 plaintiffs with

prejudice, but a review of the order and opinion shows otherwise. The opinion expressly

focuses on “Finkbeiner’s complaint,” “Finkbeiner’s [f]actual [a]llegations,” and

“Finkbeiner’s claims.” 8 Beyond passing references to Finkbeiner’s role as putative class

representative, the opinion is silent on the claims of all other Geisinger employees.

Simply, the Court’s dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint affects only Finkbeiner

5
    Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 124 (3d Cir. 2005).
6
    See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, 41(a).
7
 Plaintiffs have not argued that the District Court’s order granting leave to file Finkbeiner’s
Third Amended Complaint effected a dismissal of the remaining plaintiffs. Given the lack
of language of dismissal in that order and Geisinger’s objection to the dismissal of any
plaintiff without prejudice, we would at any rate decline to make that inference.
8
 See Finkbeiner, 623 F. Supp. 3d at 462–64. The District Court did say that “[t]hey”—
Plaintiffs who were party to the Second Amended Complaint—“fil[ed]” the Third
Amended Complaint. Id. at 462. But the Court focused on Finkbeiner, and, in any event,
Finkbeiner was expressly designated the Third Amended Complaint’s only Plaintiff party.

                                               4
because no other plaintiff is named as a party in that pleading or asserted claims in it. 9

No fair reading of the opinion or order could suggest the Court adjudicated the claims of

plaintiffs not party to the Third Amended Complaint. 10 And the Court did not designate

its dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint a final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 11 Consequently, the claims of 105 plaintiffs remain

live and divest us of appellate jurisdiction.

         For these reasons, we will dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

9
 Because the District Court did not certify the putative plaintiff class, the Second Amended
Complaint’s other plaintiffs never became parties to the Third Amended Complaint’s
putative class action. Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55, 63 (3d
Cir. 2023). And though the filing of an amended complaint in accord with Rule 15 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure typically makes that amended complaint the operative
one, Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 88 (3d Cir. 2019), that is true only of the
amending party, and the Third Amended Complaint names only one plaintiff party.
10
  Finkbeiner also argues that the District Court’s administrative instruction for the Clerk
of Court to “CLOSE the case file” means that the claims of all 106 plaintiffs must have
been dismissed. See Dist. Ct. Docket 59. But “administrative closings are not final orders,”
do not operate as dismissals, and have no effect on jurisdiction. Freeman v. Pittsburgh
Glass Works, LLC, 709 F.3d 240, 247 (3d Cir. 2013).
11
     Elliott v. Archdiocese of New York, 682 F.3d 213, 219 (3d Cir. 2012).
                                                5