VACCARO v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, 3:18-cv-11852

Background

Plaintiff Jennifer Chiu sued Amazon, alleging unpaid overtime for time spent during mandatory security screenings at Amazon's New Jersey fulfillment centers.
Plaintiff sought class certification for all hourly employees in New Jersey from May 11, 2016, onward, who worked 40+ hours in a week, claiming Amazon had a uniform policy resulting in uncompensated time.
On October 30, 2024, the court denied class certification, finding individualized questions of liability predominated over common issues due to varying security protocols and time periods among facilities and workers.
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, alternatively requesting certification of narrower subclasses focused on periods and facilities where screenings unquestionably occurred.
Defendant Amazon opposed, and the court reviewed the matter based on the parties' submissions, without oral argument.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration, holding Plaintiff failed to identify overlooked facts/law and that proposing new subclasses at this stage was procedurally improper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court err in denying class certification due to lack of predominance?	Chiu argued that whether screenings occurred at different times/facilities is a common issue provable by Amazon's records and does not defeat predominance.	Amazon argued variations in screening practices and use of the "A-Z App" created individualized questions about liability and compensation.	Court held individualized issues predominate due to non-uniform practices; denial of class certification was not clear error.
Should the court certify newly proposed narrowed subclasses on reconsideration?	Chiu proposed subclasses excluding facilities/periods without screenings to address prior concerns.	Amazon argued the subclasses were first raised on reconsideration, and there was insufficient procedural basis to consider them.	Court held it was improper to consider new subclasses for the first time on reconsideration; such proposals should have been made earlier.
Is a motion for reconsideration an appropriate vehicle to challenge denial of class certification?	Chiu argued Rule 23 allows revisiting certification before final judgment and cited other cases where courts revised earlier class certification refusals.	Amazon maintained reconsideration rules are limited to correcting clear error or oversight, not for new arguments or relitigating decided matters.	Court held reconsideration was inappropriate absent new law, facts, or clear error; disagreement with the ruling is not enough.
Does a court have the duty to sua sponte redefine a class to cure certification defects?	Chiu suggested the court should have narrowed the class or certified subclasses without explicit proposals from Plaintiff.	Amazon argued (and the court agreed) that the burden to propose subclasses lies with the plaintiff, and courts are not required to invent or advise on subclasses.	Court held that while a court has discretion to redefine a class, it has no obligation to do so; burden rests on Plaintiff to present viable subclass proposals in original motion.

Key Cases Cited

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016) (discussing Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and common vs. individualized questions)
U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (court not required to construct subclasses sua sponte)
Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397 (3d Cir. 2011) (standards for motions for reconsideration)
Reyes v. Netdeposit, LLC, 802 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015) (plaintiffs, not the court, must define subclasses)