Stephanie Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated
705 F. App'x 283
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Putative class action where named plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) after the district court denied class certification.
- Shortly after dismissal, absent class members (through new would‑be intervenors) moved to intervene to appeal the denial of class certification.
- The district court declined to consider the intervention motion, concluding the case was finally closed after the stipulated dismissal.
- A Fifth Circuit panel (relying on Sommers) reversed on jurisdictional grounds, holding the district court had authority to entertain the motion to intervene; it did not decide whether intervention was meritorious.
- The court denied rehearing en banc; a concurrence (Graves) defended Sommers/Odle as consistent with Supreme Court and sister‑circuit precedent, while a dissent (Jones) argued Sommers/Odle conflict with longstanding law limiting post‑dismissal court jurisdiction and with Rules 41 and 23(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court retains jurisdiction to consider a post‑dismissal motion to intervene by absent class members after a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice seeking to appeal denial of class certification | Intervenors: court has jurisdiction; Sommers and other authority allow intervention post‑dismissal to protect absent class members’ appeal rights and prevent collusive buy‑offs | Respondent/ dissent: stipulated dismissal is effective immediately and terminates the action; only narrow collateral matters survive dismissal, so intervention to reopen merits is improper | Panel (and concurrence) held district court has jurisdiction to consider the motion to intervene; en banc rehearing denied (no change) |
| Whether Sommers/Odle conflict with Rule 23(e) or Supreme Court precedent limiting post‑dismissal proceedings | Intervenors: Supreme Court decisions (McDonald, Roper) support protecting putative class members’ rights to appeal certification rulings; concerns about collusion justify jurisdiction | Dissent: Rule 23(e) and Rule 41’s interaction mean precertification dismissals take effect immediately; allowing intervention undermines finality and settlement certainty | Concurrence: Sommers/Odle do not conflict with Rule 23(e) or the cited Supreme Court cases; dissent disagrees but en banc majority declined to revisit the panel rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385 (1977) (putative class member may intervene/appeal denial of certification to protect interests when named plaintiff will not)
- Deposit Guaranty Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980) (denial of class certification is a procedural, collateral ruling often appealable after final judgment; expresses concern about defendants buying off named plaintiffs)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (after voluntary dismissal without prejudice, courts retain authority over certain collateral matters like Rule 11 sanctions, fees, contempt)
- Sommers v. Bank of Am., 835 F.3d 509 (5th Cir. 2016) (Fifth Circuit rejected categorical rule that intervention is always improper after dismissal; treated intervention timeliness as a factor)
- SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald, 618 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2010) (after Rule 41 stipulated dismissal, district court lacks jurisdiction to enforce settlement unless jurisdiction retained by agreement or conditional filing)
- Bechuck v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 814 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2016) (district court lacked jurisdiction after voluntary dismissal without prejudice to impose post‑dismissal restrictions going to merits)
- In re Brewer, 863 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (held district court could consider post‑dismissal intervention by putative class members; mootness doctrine informs jurisdictional effect)
- Love v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 865 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2017) (majority found intervenor’s appeal untimely; concurrence endorsed allowing timely intervention/appeal post‑stipulated dismissal to protect absent class members)