15 F.4th 607
3rd Cir.2021Background
- Twelve current and former mortgage loan officers sued Citizens Bank alleging it maintained a policy causing MLOs to work "off the clock" and seek unpaid overtime under the FLSA and parallel state laws.
- District Court granted conditional FLSA certification (2016); ~1,000 notices sent and 351 employees opted in; plaintiffs later moved to certify ten state-law Rule 23(b)(3) classes.
- A Special Master recommended final FLSA certification and Rule 23 class certification; the District Court scheduled an FLSA single-issue trial on whether Citizens had a policy causing unreported hours before resolving Rule 23 certification.
- Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s prior Rule 23 certification for insufficient "rigorous" analysis in Reinig v. RBS Citizens, 912 F.3d 115, and remanded for further consideration; the District Court nonetheless planned the FLSA trial first.
- Citizens petitioned for mandamus and sought a stay; the Third Circuit granted a stay, concluded Citizens had a reasonable probability of success on mandamus grounds and that mandamus was the only adequate remedy, then dissolved the stay after the District Judge requested reassignment and dismissed part of the petition as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Citizens' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may try the FLSA opt-in collective action on the core liability issue before deciding Rule 23 class certification for state-law claims | Proceeding with the FLSA trial is a proper exercise of case management; it does not prevent later class procedures | Trial-before-certification on core common facts would undermine Rule 23, allow "one-way intervention," and deprive Citizens of class-procedure protections | Third Circuit found substantial risk of error in holding the FLSA trial first; stressed Rule 23 requires early certification and rigorous analysis and stayed trial pending mandamus review (later dissolved for reassignment) |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate/available to prevent the FLSA trial from going forward | Plaintiffs implicitly argued ordinary appellate remedies suffice | Citizens: immediate appeal is unavailable; mandamus is the only remedy to prevent irreparable prejudice from airing common evidence before Rule 23 decision | Court held mandamus was the only adequate remedy and Citizens showed a reasonable probability of success on that ground |
| Whether a stay pending resolution of mandamus should issue (Nken factors) | Plaintiffs: stay would delay recovery and burden putative class members | Citizens: absent stay, airing common evidence would cause irreparable harm and defeat Rule 23 protections | Court found the first two Nken factors (likelihood of success and irreparable harm) and the third (limited plaintiff prejudice) supported a stay; public interest not dispositive |
| Whether reassignment of the case was warranted | Plaintiffs did not press reassignment | Citizens sought reassignment; the District Judge joined that request | District Judge joined request; Third Circuit dissolved stay so Chief Judge may reassign and dismissed reassignment claim as moot insofar as it was granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Halle v. W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc., 842 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2016) (describing FLSA collective-certification procedures)
- Reinig v. RBS Citizens, 912 F.3d 115 (3d Cir. 2018) (vacating District Court Rule 23 certification for lack of rigorous analysis)
- Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (explaining the dangers of post-merits class adjudication and one-way intervention)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1974) (disfavoring merits determination prior to class certification)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (merits overlap permissible only as relevant to Rule 23 analysis)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (U.S. 2013) (limits on merits inquiry at certification)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009) (standard for evaluating stays pending appeal)
- In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussion of rigorous Rule 23 analysis and timing)
- Peritz v. Liberty Loan Corp., 523 F.2d 349 (7th Cir. 1975) (holding Rule 23(b)(3) classes should be certified before trial)
- Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1980) (mandamus is a drastic remedy but available in extraordinary circumstances)