Reinig v. RBS Citizens, 386 F. Supp. 3d 602

Plaintiffs pursued both an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class action alleging off-the-clock work by mortgage loan officers at Citizens Bank.
The Third Circuit issued a precedential opinion (Reinig) holding that Rule 23 class certification and FLSA § 216(b) collective certification are not "inextricably intertwined" and that their standards differ.
Defendant moved to decertify the FLSA collective after the Third Circuit opinion; the motion effectively asked the district court to reconsider its prior FLSA certification decision in light of the appellate opinion.
The district court reviewed the applicable standard for motions for reconsideration and for interlocutory orders, noting relief is limited to intervening controlling law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice.
The court found no intervening controlling law favorable to Defendant, no new evidence, and no clear error—declining to revisit its factual finding that opted-in plaintiffs are "similarly situated."
The court denied Defendant’s renewed motion to decertify without prejudice, set a single-issue jury trial on whether Citizens Bank had a policy/practice causing loan officers to work "off the clock," and preserved the parties’ rights to re-raise decertification after trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Reinig means FLSA collective must be decertified	FLSA collective standard differs from Rule 23; original certification valid	Reconsideration urged because appellate opinion addressed Rule 23 and may affect FLSA certification	Denied—Reinig confirmed standards differ and did not mandate decertification
Whether there is an intervening change in controlling law	No change that invalidates certification	Cites Ninth Circuit Campbell as conflicting authority	Denied—Campbell is inapposite and inconsistent with controlling Third Circuit opinion
Whether new evidence warrants reconsideration	No new evidence	Asserts prior factual findings should be reexamined	Denied—no new evidence presented
Whether clear error or manifest injustice exists	Prior factual findings that plaintiffs are similarly situated were correct	Claims prior rulings were erroneous and seeks correction	Denied—court finds no clear error; allows renewal after single-issue trial

Reinig v. RBS Citizens, 912 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2019) (Rule 23 and FLSA § 216(b) certification standards are distinct)
Zavala v. Walmart, 691 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2012) (factors for FLSA "similarly situated" inquiry)
Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz, 670 F.2d 440 (3d Cir. 1981) (limits on pendent appellate jurisdiction)
United States v. Aleynikov, 765 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2014) (discussing scope of plenary appellate review)
Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2010) (standards for motions for reconsideration)
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985) (grounds for reconsideration)
Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (reconsideration relief limited to narrow grounds)
Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2018) (Ninth Circuit approach to FLSA collective certification; considered inapposite by district court)
Emerick v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 750 F.2d 19 (3d Cir. 1984) (bifurcation and judicial economy)
Oldershaw v. DaVita Healthcare Partners, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (D. Colo. 2017) (bifurcating FLSA from state-law claims)