In re: Valerie White, 64 F.4th 302

Plaintiffs Valerie White, Eva Juneau, and Peter Betancourt sued the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan under ERISA, alleging Hilton improperly denied vested retirement benefits (fractional pre-1976 service, non-participating property service, and posthumous beneficiary denials).
White moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class seeking injunctive relief; the district court repeatedly flagged the proposed class definition as “fail-safe” and ultimately denied certification on that basis.
The district court first denied certification without prejudice twice, invited a revised class definition, then denied the amended motion with prejudice in March 2022 as impermissibly fail-safe.
White filed a timely Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory review; the district court stayed proceedings pending the appeal.
The D.C. Circuit granted review under the Lorazepam framework, found the fail-safe issue an important unsettled question likely to evade end-of-case review, and concluded the district court abused its discretion.
Holding: the court rejected a freestanding rule barring fail-safe classes and instructed district courts to apply Rule 23’s text (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and Rule 23(c) class-definition authority) to cure or address problematic definitions; reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Rule 23(f) petition	White filed within 14 days of the March 22, 2022 denial; petition is timely	Hilton argued earlier non-final denials started the clock and the petition was untimely	Timely: March 22 denial was final on certification and started the 14-day clock; petition was filed within it
Appropriateness of interlocutory review	The fail-safe question is an important, recurring legal issue likely to evade end-of-case review	Hilton urged against early appellate intervention	Review warranted under Lorazepam: important unsettled issue, likely to evade review, and no prejudice to district court
Whether fail-safe class definitions are per se barred	White argued curable drafting issues and Rule 23 already guards against defects; class can be rephrased or the court can define it	Hilton urged a categorical bar on fail-safe classes to prevent circular, indeterminate definitions	Rejected categorical fail-safe bar; district court abused discretion by relying exclusively on an extra-textual rule rather than applying Rule 23 factors
Remedy and next steps	Plaintiffs sought certification or at least remediation of the class definition	Hilton sought affirmation of denial	Court reversed and remanded for the district court to apply Rule 23(a)/(b)/(c) and, if needed, reformulate or define the class rather than flatly denying certification

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (Rule 23 prerequisites and manageability considerations for class certification)
In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 289 F.3d 98 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (framework for when Rule 23(f) interlocutory review is appropriate)
In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2012) (discussing and rejecting a rule against fail-safe classes)
In re Nexium Antitrust Litig., 777 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2015) (endorsing a rule against fail-safe classes)
Byrd v. Aaron’s Inc., 784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2015) (endorsing an anti-fail-safe rule)
Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (recognizing fail-safe concern but urging refinement of class definitions rather than per se denial)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (limits on broad commonality and the need for a specific common question)
DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (rejecting overly broad class definitions that merely allege a common legal violation)