As Matter Of First Impression, 10-Day Deadline for Seeking Interlocutory Review of Court Order Refusing to Certify Class Action is Jurisdictional and District Court Cannot “Extend” Deadline by Vacating and Reentering its Order Eleventh Circuit Holds
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against their employer, BellSouth, alleging a “pattern and practice of racial discrimination in promotions and compensation.” Defense attorneys opposed plaintiff’s motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action, and on September 19, 2006, the district court entered its order denying class certification. Jenkins v. BellSouth Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 1881294, *1 (11th Cir. July 2, 2007). On October 3, plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the order denying class action treatment, but on November 7 the court denied that request. Id. On November 24 plaintiffs asked the Eleventh Circuit for permission under FRCP Rule 23(f) to proceed with an interlocutory appeal of the class action certification order, but the Circuit Court dismissed the petition as untimely. Id. In response, plaintiffs asked the district court to “vacate and reenter” the order denying reconsideration, pleading that its petition in the Circuit Court was due November 22 (the day before Thanksgiving), that it attempted on November 21 to file its petition by overnight delivery, and that the package was delivered November 24 (the day after Thanksgiving). Id. The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion on March 5, 2007; specifically, the court “vacated its order of November 7, 2006, and reentered an identical order,” id. Plaintiffs filed their second Rule 23(f) petition on March 14, 2007, id.
The Eleventh Circuit stated that the issue presented had not been addressed previously in the circuit, explaining at page *1: “This petition presents an issue of first impression: whether a district court has the authority to circumvent the ten-day deadline for obtaining interlocutory review of an order denying class certification by vacating and reentering that order, after the aggrieved parties filed and this Court dismissed an untimely petition for an interlocutory appeal.” The Circuit Court held that “the district court lacked the authority to circumvent the ten-day deadline provided in Rule 23(f) by vacating and reentering its earlier order” and, accordingly, that plaintiffs’ petition was untimely, id. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court recognized that the result would be different had the case involved a request to pursue an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): “Our predecessor court explained that a district court can reconsider the criteria of section 1292(b) for certification of an interlocutory appeal, determine ‘that the previous justification for a certification continues to exist, … reenter the interlocutory order and thus trigger a new ten-day period.’” Jenkins, at *2 (citation omitted). The Eleventh Circuit concluded, however, that Rule 23(f) does not permit a district court to “revive” an untimely petition, id. The Circuit Court noted that the Seventh Circuit had reached the same conclusion, id., at *3 (citing Richardson Electronics, Ltd. v. Panache Broadcasting of Pennsylvania, Inc., 202 F.3d 957, 959 (7th Cir. 2000) [holding that “when a class-certification order is an arguable candidate for a Rule 23(f) appeal, the appellants may not use section 1292(b) to circumvent the 10-day limitation in Rule 23(f)”]).
In dismissing the petition, the Circuit Court held at page *4: “The single opportunity for seeking interlocutory review of the denial of class certification expired on November 22, 2006, and the later order of March 5, 2007, did not change the status quo. We hold that the district court was without the authority to circumvent the ten-day deadline for obtaining interlocutory review of its order denying class certification by vacating and reentering that order after the original deadline for seeking interlocutory relief under Rule 23(f) had expired.”
NOTE: The Circuit Court opinion colorfully opens as follows: “In regions where there are many evangelicals, like the American South, a revival is a common religious service…, but in American law, a revival of an enforceable right is an exceptional event. The question in this putative class action is whether a district court is empowered to sponsor a revival of a right to seek an interlocutory appeal of its decision about class certification as frequently and spontaneously as an evangelical preacher leads a revival for a congregation. We think not.” Jenkins, at *1 (citation omitted).
Comments are closed.