Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 259
Cir. 2021), which limited personal jurisdiction over FLSA claims. For these reasons, the
First Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction.
Application of the principles in Bristol-Myers Squibb continued to divide the courts in
2022. In contrast to the First Circuit, the court in Hood, et al. v. Capstone Logistics LLC,
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 435934 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 2, 2022), ruled to the contrary. The
plaintiff filed a nationwide collective action alleging that the defendant violated the
FLSA. The defendant filed a motion to strike the plaintiff’s nationwide collective action
claims. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be granted. The defendant
contended that under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et
al. v. Superior Court Of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), a North Carolina federal
court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant to adjudicate the claims of workers
outside of North Carolina. First, the defendant asserted that North Carolina courts
lacked general personal jurisdiction over the defendant because it is not headquartered
in or considered to be “at home” in North Carolina. Second, the defendant argued that
North Carolina courts lacked specific personal jurisdiction over it with respect to any
claims of non-North Carolina employees because such potential claims do not arise out
of the defendant’s activities in North Carolina. The Magistrate Judge agreed with the
defendant. The Magistrate Judge found that although this issue had never been argued
in the Western District of North Carolina or the Fourth Circuit, the Third, Sixth, and
Eighth Circuits have followed the reasoning in Bristol-Myers Squibb and held that a
district court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over FLSA claims by collective
action members that do not arise from their work in the forum state. Thus, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the court grant the defendants’ motion to strike
plaintiff’s nationwide collective action claims.
The court similarly addressed the impact subject-matter jurisdiction on the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) in a ruling from In Re Suffolk University Covid Refund Litigation,
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200329 (D. Mass. Nov. 3, 2022). The plaintiffs, a group of
university students, filed a class action alleging breach of contract and unjust
enrichment in connection with Suffolk University’s move to online instruction during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The court previously had denied plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. The defendant argued that the court’s earlier order on the motion for
class certification constituted a legal determination that plaintiffs could never meet the
Rule 23 requirements. The court stated that its ruling did not make any legal
determination as defendant asserted. The court ruled that it had subject-matter
jurisdiction because it never made a determination from the outset that a class could
never be certified. Id. at *2. Finally, the court explained that denial of class action
certification did not divest the court of subject-matter jurisdiction because the “CAFA
does not specifically address whether a district court may retain jurisdiction following the
denial of class certification.” Id. For these reasons, the court denied defendant’s motion
to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
258
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
