Matz v. Household International Tax Reduction Investment Plan
687 F.3d 824
7th Cir.2012Background
- ERISA class action plaintiff seeks leave to appeal under Rule 23(f) from a district court order partially decertifying the class by eliminating 3000–3500 members (roughly 57–71%).
- Defendant cross-petitions for leave to appeal, arguing the entire class should have been decertified; its appeal is untimely and dismissed.
- Rule 23(f) permits appeals from orders granting or denying class certification; it does not expressly cover modifications of a certified class.
- Committee notes suggest Rule 23(f) covers appeal-worthy certification issues; the court searches for precedent on appealability of class-modification orders.
- The court cites Gary v. Sheahan and Carpenter v. Boeing Co indicating potential appealability when a district court materially alters a certification decision.
- The court concludes it has jurisdiction to hear the petition, but the challenge to the modification of the class does not satisfy Rule 23(f) criteria and is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a district court order that modifies a prior class certification appealable under Rule 23(f)? | Gary guidance favors appealability of material modifications. | Rule 23(f) does not cover modifications; appellate relief not available. | Jurisdiction exists, but modification challenge is denied as not within Rule 23(f). |
| Does the order here change the status quo enough to be appealable under Rule 23(f)? | Modification shifts certification status previously determined. | Unclear if status-quo change qualifies for Rule 23(f) appeal. | Order materially alters prior order; appellate jurisdiction exists, but the petition fails on merits. |
| Should the appellant's petition be granted relief under Rule 23(f) given the partial decertification? | Partial decertification is within the scope of appeal under 23(f). | Rule 23(f) retreat does not authorize challenging the partial modification. | Petition denied for lack of satisfaction of Rule 23(f) criteria. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gary v. Sheahan, 188 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 1999) (material alteration of certification may permit Rule 23(f) appeal)
- Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2006) (unchanged status from prior order not a 23(f) appeal; modification may be appealable)
- Kartman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 634 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2011) (assumption that altering class order is appealable)
- Jefferson v. Ingersoll Int’l Inc., 195 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 1999) (recognizes appealability under 23(f) for status changes in certification)
- Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 574 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009) (status-change approach to appealability)
- Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizes potential appeal where certification status changed)
- Gunnells v. Healthplan Services, Inc., 348 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2003) (implication that some certification-modification orders are appealable)
- Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., 331 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2003) (discussion of Rule 23(f) appeal scope)
- Fleischman v. Albany Medical Center, 639 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2011) (status-quo change discussed as basis for appeal in reconsideration/amendment contexts)