Halle v. West Penn Allegheny Health System Inc.
842 F.3d 215
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Multiple FLSA suits originated in Western District of Pennsylvania alleging unpaid work during meal breaks; plaintiffs sought collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
- Two early matters (Camesi and Kuznyetsov) were conditionally certified, thousands opted in, discovery occurred, and district courts later decertified and dismissed opt-ins without prejudice.
- Named plaintiffs in those matters voluntarily dismissed their individual claims to try to obtain immediate appellate review of decertification; this Court in Camesi dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction and mootness.
- New, similar suits (Belle and Halle) were filed; Judge Bissoon applied issue preclusion to strike collective-action allegations in Belle and Halle and dismissed opt-ins without prejudice.
- In Halle, the named plaintiff accepted a Rule 68 offer of judgment; three opt-in plaintiffs (Tarpley, Bigenho, Haber) appealed the district court’s order dismissing collective allegations and the opt-ins’ dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court has appellate jurisdiction over appeal from district order striking collective allegations and dismissing opt-ins without prejudice | Opt-ins argued they retained a reviewable stake and that final judgment in Halle’s case merged prior interlocutory orders enabling appeal | West Penn argued the opt-ins were dismissed without prejudice (non-final) and Halle’s Rule 68 judgment (and lack of appeal by Halle) does not confer appellate rights on opt-ins | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: opt-ins had no final, appealable order and could not appeal Halle’s individual judgment |
| Whether opt-in plaintiffs remain "parties" able to pursue an appeal after being dismissed without prejudice from the named plaintiff’s case | Appellants claimed dismissal left them without a forum to obtain review of decertification and that fairness requires appellate review | Defendants argued opt-ins retained individual claims and were free to file suits; being dismissed without prejudice left no final adverse ruling to appeal | Opt-ins were not parties for § 1291 purposes and lacked standing to appeal; dismissal without prejudice is non-final |
| Whether a named plaintiff’s resolution of individual claims (Rule 68 offer accepted) allows opt-ins to appeal decertification | Appellants contended Halle’s judgment produced finality that merged prior interlocutory orders and permitted appeal | Defendants equated Halle’s judgment to voluntary dismissal in Camesi, which mooted representational interests, so opt-ins cannot ride that judgment to appeal | Court avoided deciding full mootness doctrine here but held opt-ins still could not appeal because they had been dismissed and were not parties to Halle’s final judgment |
| Whether opt-ins waived rights to litigate/appeal by consent forms delegating authority to named plaintiff | Appellants did not rely on preservation via consent; argued fairness and jurisdictional bases instead | Defendants pointed to consent forms authorizing named plaintiff to make litigation decisions (including settlement/appeal) | Court noted consent language delegated litigation authority to named plaintiff, and even if appeal were available, opt-ins’ consent would have waived separate appeal rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Camesi v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 729 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013) (decertification order interlocutory; voluntary dismissal cannot manufacture finality for appeal)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (U.S. 2013) (distinguishing FLSA collective actions from Rule 23 and addressing mootness after Rule 68 offer)
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2002) (unnamed Rule 23 class members are parties for appeal of class settlement binding them)
- Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (importance of court-supervised notice in collective/representative actions)
- Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 691 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2012) (two-step collective-action certification framework; ad hoc final-certification analysis)
- Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1992) (ADEA collective/opt-in discovery practices and treatment of opt-ins when collective decertified)
- Smith v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 570 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2009) (named plaintiffs who settle after denial of certification lose personal stake and appeal is moot)