549 S.W.3d 430
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Former Haynes/ATS truck drivers (led by James Hensley) sued under Kentucky's prevailing-wage statute (KRS 337.505–.550) seeking backpay and statutory damages for unpaid prevailing wages/overtime on public-works projects; Hartford was the surety for performance bonds.
- Hensley moved for class certification under CR 23; the trial court allowed discovery, held hearings, and certified a class of drivers employed since 1995 who performed specified on-site tasks and were not paid prevailing wages.
- Haynes, ATS, and Hartford appealed the certification; the Court of Appeals vacated certification (finding lack of commonality) and one judge suggested KRS 337.550(2) might bar class suits.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review to decide only whether the trial court properly certified the class (interlocutory review confined to certification issues).
- The Supreme Court held (1) the trial court had jurisdiction to certify the class because at least one plaintiff met the jurisdictional minimum, (2) KRS 337.550(2) does not preclude class actions, and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class under CR 23.
- The Court declined to resolve on interlocutory review whether Kentucky law contains a de minimis limitation (that would implicate merits), leaving such substantive determinations to the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hensley) | Defendant's Argument (Haynes/ATS/Hartford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction to certify class | Trial court may certify because at least one plaintiff satisfies jurisdictional amount | Court lacked jurisdiction over class members whose claims do not meet jurisdictional minimum; those claims should be dismissed | Trial court had jurisdiction to certify the class because one plaintiff satisfied amount; interlocutory review limited to whether court could certify (not to dismiss individual low-value claims) |
| Availability of class action under KRS 337.550(2) | CR 23 applies; statute does not create a special procedural scheme to preclude class suits | KRS 337.550(2) (and commissioner enforcement) implies class suits are not available | KRS 337.550(2) does not constitute a special statutory proceeding; CR 23 remains available for prevailing-wage claims |
| Alleged de minimis limitation in prevailing-wage law | Not addressed at certification stage; class mechanism is procedural | Federal-style de minimis rule excludes some drivers who spent trivial time on site, defeating numerosity/commonality | Court declined to decide de minimis issue on interlocutory review because it raises merits; trial court may address it later |
| CR 23 certification prerequisites (numerosity, commonality, typicality, predominance/superiority, ascertainability/class definition) | Class meets CR 23: numerous, common liability question (entitlement to prevailing wage), typical representatives, adequate counsel; class action is superior | Differences among drivers (time on site, individualized liability/damages) defeat commonality/predominance; class definition is overbroad/unascertainable or a fail-safe | Trial court did not abuse discretion: numerosity/impracticability satisfied; commonality and typicality met (central common contention); predominance/superiority satisfied or alternative CR 23.02(a) ground exists; class definition not fail-safe and is ascertainable; trial court may manage subclasses or modify/decertify later if needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (rigorous commonality analysis; common contention must resolve central issues classwide)
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (merits may be considered to the extent relevant to Rule 23 prerequisites)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (supplemental jurisdiction may allow adjudication of related claims once one satisfies jurisdictional amount)
- McCann v. Sullivan Univ. Sys., Inc., 528 S.W.3d 331 (Ky. 2017) (Kentucky rule: statutes that do not create a special procedural scheme leave CR 23 available)
- Mims v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 590 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2009) (on interlocutory review under Rule 23, courts may not resolve general merits questions)
- Randleman v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 646 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011) (example of improper "fail-safe" class definition)