464 F.Supp.3d 455
D. Mass.2020Background:
- Plaintiff John Waters, a former Day & Zimmerman Mechanical Supervisor, worked in Plymouth, Massachusetts (Jan–May 2018) and alleges the employer failed to pay proper overtime in violation of the FLSA.
- Waters filed a putative FLSA collective action; several opt-in plaintiffs executed consent forms, many of whom reside outside Massachusetts.
- Defendant Day & Zimmerman moved to dismiss non-Massachusetts opt-in plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), invoking Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (BMS).
- The principal legal question was whether BMS’s specific-jurisdiction limits (issued in a state-court mass-tort context) apply to FLSA collective actions in federal court.
- The court analyzed personal jurisdiction under the Massachusetts long-arm statute and federal due process principles, recognizing specific jurisdiction over Waters himself.
- Judge Gorton declined to extend BMS to FLSA collective actions and denied the motion to dismiss; jurisdiction over Waters sufficed for the collective action.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bristol-Myers Squibb limits personal jurisdiction in FLSA collectives | BMS does not apply; FLSA is a federal remedial scheme allowing nationwide claims and opt-ins do not change the suit’s nature | BMS applies by analogy to mass torts and thus courts lack specific jurisdiction over out-of-state opt-ins | Court: BMS does not apply to FLSA collectives; declined to extend BMS |
| Whether court lacks personal jurisdiction over non-MA opt-in plaintiffs | Waters’s claim gives the federal suit a Massachusetts nexus; jurisdiction over Waters suffices for the collective | Nonresident opt-ins’ claims do not arise from defendant’s MA contacts, so no jurisdiction | Court: Specific jurisdiction exists as to Waters; that is sufficient to maintain the collective action |
| Whether concerns animating BMS (forum-shopping, lack of nexus) warrant limiting FLSA suits | FLSA’s nationwide remedial purpose and opt-in mechanism reduce BMS concerns; Congress intended collective adjudication | Similarities to mass torts justify BMS’s application to prevent overreaching | Court: FLSA’s purposes and structural differences from mass torts undercut BMS’s rationale; limits in BMS aimed at states’ courts, not federal courts |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (held forum must have connection between defendant’s contacts and each plaintiff’s claim for specific jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits on general jurisdiction; corporation must be essentially at home in forum)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts / due process foundation for personal jurisdiction)
- United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, 274 F.3d 610 (1st Cir. 2001) (due process in federal-question cases requires adequate contacts with the United States)
- A Corp. v. All Am. Plumbing, Inc., 812 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2016) (prima facie standard for jurisdictional factual showing on Rule 12(b)(2) motion)
- Cossart v. United Excel Corp., 804 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2015) (plaintiff bears burden to put forward specific facts to demonstrate jurisdiction)
- Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2002) (Massachusetts long-arm and due process test for jurisdiction)