GMS Mine Repair and Maintenance v. Jeffrey S. Milkos
238 W. Va. 707
| W. Va. | 2017Background
- Miklos filed a putative class action under the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act alleging unpaid final wages after termination; he served class-focused discovery immediately.
- GMS (defendant) answered the individual claim and moved to stay class (precertification) discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive statutory construction issue (when a worker is "discharged" for final-wage timing).
- The circuit court denied the stay, finding GMS waived objections to the discovery as untimely and ordering class discovery to proceed; GMS sought relief in the Supreme Court of Appeals.
- GMS argued the court failed to perform required case-management functions (no Rule 16 scheduling order or Rule 26(f) discovery conference) and that judicial economy favored resolving a dispositive motion before burdensome class discovery.
- The Supreme Court treated the matter as a petition for writ of prohibition and reviewed for abuse of discretion, granting the writ and vacating the denial of the stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion in denying a stay of class discovery | Miklos: GMS waived objections by late responses; early class discovery is appropriate under Rule 23 and necessary for certification | GMS: Circuit should stay class discovery pending resolution of a threshold summary-judgment issue to avoid undue burden and expense; court failed to manage case under Rules 16/26 | Court: Abuse of discretion — trial court should have considered case-management role and merits-based stay; vacated denial and ordered class discovery stayed pending ruling on summary judgment unless significant prejudice shown |
| Whether a court may defer class-certification and stay class discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion against the named plaintiff | Miklos: Rule 23 requires determination "as soon as practicable," supporting early class discovery | GMS: Rule 23 timing is not absolute; efficiency permits deciding dispositive motions first to avoid pointless class discovery | Court: A court may defer class-certification and stay class discovery pending a summary-judgment ruling when judicial economy warrants; non-moving party must show significant prejudice to overcome a stay |
| Whether waiver finding was appropriate given parties' communications and procedural posture | Miklos: Waiver — GMS untimely raised objections and thus lost them | GMS: Communications about deferring class discovery, prompt answers to individual discovery, and absence of a motion to compel until later justified consideration on the merits | Court: Waiver ruling was unduly harsh given negotiations, partial responses, and lack of circuit court case-management; court should have ruled on merits of stay request |
| Proper role of Rules 16 and 26 in managing putative class actions | Miklos: Early class discovery aligns with Rule 23 and may be necessary; trial court discretion controls sequencing | GMS: Rule 16 and 26 require active judicial management (scheduling order, discovery conferences) to phase discovery and control burdens | Court: Trial courts must actively manage under Rules 16/26; absence of scheduling/management order here contributed to abuse of discretion and supports staying class discovery until threshold ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 188 W.Va. 622, 425 S.E.2d 577 (W. Va. 1992) (writ of prohibition available to correct clear legal error in discovery orders)
- Caruso v. Pearce, 223 W.Va. 544, 678 S.E.2d 50 (W. Va. 2009) (Rule 16(b) requires active judicial management and entry of a scheduling order)
- Love v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 214 W.Va. 484, 590 S.E.2d 677 (W. Va. 2003) (class-certification discovery may be required before denying certification)
- Gulas v. Infocision Mgmt. Corp., 215 W.Va. 225, 599 S.E.2d 648 (W. Va. 2004) (remand for limited discovery on class-certification prerequisites)
- Perrine v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 225 W.Va. 482, 694 S.E.2d 815 (W. Va. 2010) (class’s viability hinges on strength of named representatives’ claims)
- McFoy v. Amerigas, Inc., 170 W.Va. 526, 295 S.E.2d 16 (W. Va. 1982) (court may determine liability before defining class when appropriate)
- Wright v. Schock, 742 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1984) (Rule 23 timing is discretionary; courts may rule on summary judgment before certification when practicable)
- Curtin v. United Airlines, Inc., 275 F.3d 88 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (permitting merits resolution before certification to avoid needless certification inquiry)