Fleischman v. ALBANY MEDICAL CENTER, 639 F.3d 28

RN Unger sued on behalf of similarly situated RNs alleging Sherman Act conspiracy to depress wages in Albany area.
Amended complaint in 2007 substituted Fleischman and Cullen as representative plaintiffs.
District court certified a class in part on July 28, 2008 but found issues of injury and damages not sufficiently common.
District court granted clarification and certified the second-count issues for the same class on Sept. 17, 2008.
Discovery on merits followed; petitioners moved to amend class certification to a narrower RN subgroup.
District court denied the motion to amend on Feb. 16, 2010; petition under Rule 23(f) filed subsequently and timely under the new denial rule; court dismissed the petition for lack of timeliness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a Rule 23(c)(1)(C) motion to amend is an appealable Rule 23(f) order	Fleischman argues amendment denial resets appeal clock	Respondents argue amendment denial does not change certification status	No; not an appealable Rule 23(f) order

Coco v. Inc. Vill. of Belle Terre, 448 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 2006) (time limit strict; 23(f) window not tolled by later events)
Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson, 523 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2008) (time limit runs from initial certification order; later non-changing orders do not revive clock)
Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2006) (14-day limit is strict; no tolling by later motions)
Jenkins v. BellSouth Corp., 491 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2007) (what counts ordinarily is the original order, not a later status-quo order)
McNamara v. Felderhof, 410 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 2005) (Rule 23(c)(1)(C) amendment does not toll Rule 23(f) deadline)
In re DC Water & Sewer Auth., 561 F.3d 494 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (expresses strict, limited timing for Rule 23(f) appeals)