Waters v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc.
23 F.4th 84
| 1st Cir. | 2022Background
- John Waters sued Day & Zimmermann (D&Z) in D. Mass. under the FLSA §216(b) as a collective action for unpaid overtime; Waters was served in Massachusetts.
- Over 100 employees from multiple states filed §216(b) opt-in consents in the district court; many opt-ins worked for D&Z outside Massachusetts.
- D&Z moved to dismiss the out-of-state opt-in claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, relying on Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) (Fourteenth Amendment limits on state-court jurisdiction in mass actions).
- District court denied the motion, holding BMS does not control federal-court jurisdiction over federal FLSA claims added by opt-ins after proper service on the named plaintiff.
- Interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b); First Circuit affirmed: Rule 4(k)(1) governs territorial limits of effective service, not a free-standing life-of-suit limit on federal-court jurisdiction over post-service opt-ins; opt-ins are parties upon filing written consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Waters) | Defendant's Argument (D&Z) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4(k)(1)(A) bars federal court from exercising jurisdiction over out-of-state opt-ins added after the named plaintiff properly served the defendant | Rule 4(k) governs only the effectiveness of initial service; once D&Z was properly served in MA, federal court may adjudicate opt-ins; Rule 4 does not import BMS limits for the life of the suit | Rule 4(k) imports Fourteenth Amendment/state long-arm limits; BMS requires dismissal of opt-ins lacking Massachusetts contacts even in federal court | Held for Waters. Rule 4(k) addresses territorial limits of effective service, not a free-standing life-of-suit constraint; BMS does not automatically apply to federal FLSA claims added post-service. |
| Which constitutional due-process standard governs federal-court jurisdiction over federal claims: Fifth Amendment (federal) or Fourteenth Amendment (state)? | Fifth Amendment governs federal courts; Fourteenth Amendment limits state courts and should not be grafted onto federal adjudication after proper service | Pointed to Rule 4(k) and long-arm service as means to incorporate state (Fourteenth) constraints into federal practice | Held for Waters. Fifth Amendment governs federal-court constitutional limits on jurisdiction for federal claims once service is proper; Rule 4(k) does not supplant that. |
| Whether opt-in plaintiffs are parties upon filing written consent or only after conditional certification | Opt-ins become party-plaintiffs when they file written consents under §216(b) (Genesis Healthcare and majority circuit precedent) | Argued conditional certification or court acceptance controls party status (attempt to limit appellate posture) | Held for Waters. Opt-ins become parties on filing written consents; conditional certification is not a statutory requirement. |
| Whether Rule 20/joinder or other rules limit joining opt-ins post-service | FLSA’s §216(b) opt-in mechanism ("similarly situated") governs joinder of opt-ins; Rule 4 does not displace Rule 20/FLSA joinder practices | D&Z contended territorial limits should apply to added plaintiffs the same as to original plaintiff | Held for Waters. Joinder of opt-ins is governed by FLSA procedures (and Rules like 20), not by treating Rule 4(k) as an ongoing jurisdictional veto on later-added plaintiffs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017) (Fourteenth Amendment requires a connection between forum and specific claims in state-law mass actions)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (U.S. 2017) (service of process is prerequisite to personal jurisdiction)
- Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1987) (service necessary for assertion of personal jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (limits of personal jurisdiction and minimum contacts analysis)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts standard for due process jurisdiction)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (U.S. 2013) (opt-in plaintiffs become parties only by filing written consent under §216(b))
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (FLSA collective-action notice and procedural framework)