Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 258
CHAPTER 16
Procedural Issues In Class Actions
I.
Executive Summary
By its nature, class action litigation presents significant procedural issues to litigants and
courts alike. In 2022, courts addressed a myriad of procedural issues in class action
litigation, such as challenges to jurisdiction; venue transfers; res judicata defenses;
JPML proceedings; Article III standing; uninjured class members; commonality
concepts; preliminary injunctions; use of the All Writs Act; stays; intervention; class
communications; experts; discovery; and severance.
This chapter analyzes the significant procedural decisions rendered in 2022 to aid in
understanding recent trends on some of the most common and crucial issues corporate
defendants face in class actions.
II.
Key Rulings On Procedural Issues In Class Actions
A.
Jurisdictional Issues In Class Actions
Jurisdiction is an important consideration in class action litigation. Corporate defendants
are rarely sued in their state of incorporation or headquarters location, so the situs of
the litigation is uniquely important to the outcome of the case. In turn, jurisdiction –
either its absence or its presence – is a critical factor in litigation strategy.
The First Circuit addressed these issues in the context of a nationwide wage and hour
collective action in Waters, et al. v. Day & Zimmermann, 23 F.4th 84 (1st Cir. 2022). In
Waters, the plaintiff, a former employee, filed a collective action alleging that defendant
failed to pay him and others similarly-situated overtime compensation in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction based on Bristol-Myers Squibb, et al. v. Superior Court Of California, 137 S.
Ct. 1773, 1779-81 (2017), which held that state courts could not entertain a state law
mass action if it included out-of-state plaintiffs with no connection to the forum state.
The district court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, and declined to extend the
personal jurisdiction principles in Bristol Myer to FLSA cases. On appeal, the First
Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The First Circuit reasoned that by the plain text
of the FLSA, opt-ins who filed consent forms with the district court became parties to the
suit upon filing those forms. Therefore, the First Circuit concluded that because 100
current and former employees filed consent to join notices in the district court, there
were that many opt-in plaintiffs before the district court. The First Circuit opined that
finding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the non-resident opt-in claims would
“force those plaintiffs to file separate lawsuits in separate jurisdictions against the same
employer based on the same or similar alleged violations of the FLSA.” Id. at 97. The
First Circuit determined that the FLSA did not contemplate that outcome. In so ruling, it
rejected contrary decisions of the Sixth Circuit in Canaday, et al. v. Anthem, 9 F.4th 392
(6th 2021), and the Eighth Circuit in Vallone, et al. v. CJS Solutions, 9 F.4th 861 (8th
257
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
