Katz v. DNC Services Corp.
275 F. Supp. 3d 579
| E.D. Pa. | 2017Background
- Katz filed an FLSA and Pennsylvania wage-act suit against the Pennsylvania Democratic Party (PDP) and DNC Services Corporation alleging misclassification of organizers and unpaid overtime; counsel posted a webpage with a "Consent Form" for opt-ins.
- Katz shared the lawsuit on Facebook; within days counsel received dozens of opt-in consent forms, including many from out-of-state workers.
- PDP moved to strike the consent forms and to enjoin plaintiff and counsel from soliciting putative plaintiffs, arguing the solicitations usurped the court's notice authority and misled potential plaintiffs.
- No motion for conditional certification had been filed; plaintiffs had nonetheless submitted roughly thirty consent forms and amended the complaint twice, adding additional defendants.
- The court reviewed the webpage and Facebook post and identified specific language on the firm’s website as misleading about (1) liability being proven, (2) who can "join" the lawsuit pre-certification, and (3) the effect of not joining the suit on an individual’s rights.
- The court ordered counsel to revise the webpage, draft a curative notice permitting opt-in rescission by a specified date, collaborate with PDP on webpage edits if PDP assists, and send the notice to prior opt-ins; any rescissions must be docketed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff/counsel may solicit opt-ins before conditional certification | Solicitation and consent forms merely express interest in joining the action | Solicitation usurps court-managed notice process and misleads potential plaintiffs | Limited pre-certification solicitation permitted but must be non-misleading and corrected where misleading |
| Whether specific webpage language was misleading and must be corrected | Language describes relief sought and invites opt-ins | Language implies proven liability and wrongly suggests any organizer can join and that not joining forecloses other remedies | Court found three statements misleading and ordered tailored revisions to accurately characterize allegations and opt-in effect |
| Whether court should strike existing consent forms or allow rescission | Not explicitly argued to strike; plaintiffs relied on submitted consents | PDP sought striking of consent forms and cessation of solicitations | Court did not strike forms but ordered curative notice and allowed recipients to rescind consent by a set date; rescissions to be docketed |
| Scope of permissible limits on communications with putative class members | Counsel has First Amendment interest; communications allowed if not misleading | Court has interest in preserving integrity of litigation and protecting prospective parties | Court applied Gulf Oil/Kleiner standard: narrowly tailored restriction grounded in good cause and First Amendment sensitivity; ordered minimal corrective measures |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (district court involvement in notice process proper at conditional-certification stage)
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (orders limiting communications must be carefully drawn and minimally restrict speech)
- Kleiner v. First Nat’l Bank, 751 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir.) (limitations must be grounded in good cause with First Amendment sensitivity)
- Maddox v. Knowledge Learning Corp., 499 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (district court discretion over pre-certification solicitations analyzed)
- Jones v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, 517 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (S.D. Iowa) (one-sided or misleading precertification communications can taint putative class)