Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 876 F.3d 1199

Plaintiffs Silken Brown and Mario De La Rosa brought consolidated wage-and-hour class-action claims against Cinemark USA, Inc. and Century Theatres, Inc. alleging meal/rest breaks, reporting pay, off-the-clock work, and wage statement violations.
The district court dismissed Brown’s direct wage-statement claim and denied class certification for several claims; plaintiffs’ individual claims remained and were set for trial.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining individual claims; the district court issued a tentative ruling and the parties then stipulated to that tentative order.
The parties mutually settled all remaining individual claims, while Brown and De La Rosa expressly reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of class certification and dismissal of the direct wage-statement claim.
Defendants moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker.
The Ninth Circuit denied the motion, concluding the mutual settlement (with preserved appellate issues) did not convert the interlocutory order into an appealable final judgment under Baker.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 after settlement of remaining individual claims	Brown/De La Rosa argued settlement preserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of class certification and dismissal of certain claims	Cinemark/Century argued Baker bars appellate jurisdiction where plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed claims to create a final judgment for appeal	Court held jurisdiction exists: this mutual, consideration-based settlement that preserved appeals is not the tactic condemned in Baker

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017) (voluntary dismissal to manufacture final judgment for appeal does not create § 1291 jurisdiction and subverts Rule 23(f) review)