Joanna Wilson v. Navika Capital Group, L.L.
663 F. App'x 341
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (hotel employees) sued Navika under the FLSA for unpaid overtime/wages; the district court conditionally certified a collective action and ~330 opt-ins joined.
- After decertification on June 4, 2014, the court tolled the statute of limitations for 30 days to allow opt-ins to file individual suits; plaintiffs later obtained a sua sponte extension before the court reconsidered and revoked that extension.
- Several opt-in plaintiffs filed individual suits in multiple jurisdictions; some suits were filed within the original 30-day tolling period and others within the later extension.
- Separately, the district court ordered remaining plaintiffs to provide individualized damages computations; failure to do so led Navika to move to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 41(b).
- On March 14, 2015 the district court (1) granted Navika’s motion for reconsideration and revoked the extended tolling, and (2) dismissed remaining plaintiffs without prejudice for failure to provide damages computations. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded the notice of appeal was deficient for most appellants (jurisdiction dismissed as to them) but adequate for the five named plaintiffs; only Joanna Wilson and Ashley DeLeon pursued the appeal on the dismissal order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1) | “Plaintiffs Wilson et al.” plus filings/briefing suffice to identify appellants (liberal construction) | Notice fails to identify which of many opt-ins are appealing; “et al.” is ambiguous | Majority: notice inadequate as to most opt-ins; only five named in caption gave proper notice; others dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) for failure to provide individual damages computations | DeLeon and Wilson contend dismissal was an abuse of discretion under Rule 37 | Navika argued dismissal was proper under Rule 37 and/or Rule 41(b) after court orders and failure to comply | Court: affirmed district court dismissal of DeLeon and Wilson (appellants waived challenge to Rule 41(b)) |
| Appellate jurisdiction over equitable-tolling reconsideration order | Plaintiffs (unnamed opt-ins) argue they were appealing revocation of extended tolling and were identifiable | Navika contends unnamed opt-ins were not properly specified in the notice | Majority: because identity of appealing opt-ins was too unclear, appeal as to those plaintiffs dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Court should reach merits of tolling revocation for unnamed opt-ins | Plaintiffs ask merits review for those who filed suits in other jurisdictions during extension | Navika opposes on jurisdictional/notice grounds | Court: did not reach merits for unnamed opt-ins because of defective notice; concurrence would have retained some unnamed opt-ins |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinsley v. Lakeview Reg’l Med. Ctr. LLC, 570 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2009) (Rule 3(c) notice requirements and liberal construction principle)
- Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (liberal construction does not excuse noncompliance with Rule 3)
- Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763 (5th Cir. 2010) (notice-of-appeal form/identification issues in inmate appeals)
- Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338 (5th Cir. 1994) (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned)
- Vallejo v. Santini-Padilla, 607 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (notice adequate where same identified plaintiffs had litigated from the outset)