317 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are current/former Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. (WFMG) employees who allege abuse of WFMG’s Gainsharing bonus program by shifting labor costs to reduce bonuses, asserting claims under D.C. or state law.
- The court previously denied WFMG’s motion to dismiss to the extent it rejected WFMG’s argument that Bristol-Myers Squibb barred the court from exercising specific jurisdiction over unnamed, nonresident putative class members.
- WFMG moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify interlocutory appeal asking the D.C. Circuit to decide whether Bristol-Myers Squibb applies to unnamed nonresident members of a nationwide class in federal court.
- The court found the question to be a controlling question of law because its answer would materially change the scope of the litigation (nationwide class vs. D.C.-only class).
- The court concluded there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion: district courts are split and persuasive reasoning exists on both sides about extending Bristol-Myers Squibb to class actions.
- The court certified the order for interlocutory appeal, finding an immediate appeal could materially advance termination by avoiding extensive nationwide discovery; it stayed discovery related to nationwide class certification but allowed limited discovery for D.C. and certain other stores.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bristol-Myers Squibb limits federal courts from asserting specific jurisdiction over unnamed, nonresident members of a nationwide putative class | Bristol-Myers Squibb does not bar jurisdiction over unnamed nonresident class members in federal class actions; class actions differ from state-court mass torts | Bristol-Myers Squibb requires a connection between forum and each plaintiff’s claim, and thus bars assertion of specific jurisdiction over nonresident unnamed class members | Court certified interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): issue is controlling, there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal would materially advance termination |
| Whether certification for interlocutory appeal is appropriate under § 1292(b) | Certification unnecessary; no strong division warranting interlocutory review | Certification appropriate to avoid burdensome nationwide discovery and conserve resources if ruling reversed | Court granted certification and stayed nationwide-class discovery pending appeal |
| Scope of discovery while appeal pending | Proceeding with full nationwide discovery | Stay nationwide-class discovery; allow limited D.C./related-store discovery | Court stayed discovery concerning nationwide class certification but permitted discovery for D.C., Maryland (where applicable), and stores linked to a related case |
| Whether Rule 23 can supplant due process limits on personal jurisdiction | Rule 23 permits nationwide class certification in federal court independent of Bristol-Myers Squibb constraints | Due process limits apply regardless of Rule 23; Rule 23 cannot expand jurisdiction beyond constitutional limits | Court recognized the debate but did not resolve it; certified the jurisdictional question for interlocutory appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (Due process limits on specific jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs in mass-tort state-court context)
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (Rule 23 must be interpreted consistent with Article III and Rules Enabling Act)
- APCC Servs., Inc. v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., 297 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2003) (standards for § 1292(b) interlocutory certification)
- Practice Management Support Services, Inc. v. Cirque du Soleil, Inc., 301 F. Supp. 3d 840 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (applying Bristol-Myers Squibb to limit jurisdiction over nonresident putative class members)
- Virtual Def. & Dev. Int'l Inc. v. Republic of Moldova, 133 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001) (interlocutory review is exceptional and movant bears burden)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (courts should avoid piecemeal appeals except in exceptional circumstances)