Buy This Entire Record For
Reinig v. RBS Citizens, N.A.
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
June 25, 2019
ALEX REINIG, KEN GRITZ, BOB SODA, MARY LOU GRAMESKY, PETER WILDER SMITH, WILLIAM KINSELLA, DANIEL KOLENDA, VALERIA DAL PINO, AHMAD NAJI, ROBERT PEDERSON, TERESA FRAGALE, and DAVID HOWARD, Plaintiffs,
RBS CITIZENS, N.A., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE: RULING ON
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DECERTIFY THE FLSA
COLLECTIVE ACTION (DOC. NO. 268)
J. Schwab, United States District Court Judge.
Court previously certified Plaintiffs' collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) on May 3, 2016. Doc. No. 57.
Thereafter, approximately 350 Plaintiffs opted-in to the FLSA
collective action between May of 2016 and August of 2017.
SeeDoc. No. 112 at 11 (stating 351 individuals opted
in); Doc. No. 176 (stating 347 individuals opted
filed a Motion to Decertify the FLSA Collective Action on
April 11, 2017. Doc. No. 111. This Court denied the
Motion to Decertify on August 22, 2017. Doc. No.
216. In its Memorandum Order Adopting the Report and
Recommendation of the Special Master (Doc. No. 180),
this Court stated the following reasons for denying
Defendant's Motion to Decertify:
Defendant only objects to the Special Master's
recommendations concerning . . . [the] final certification of
Plaintiffs' nation-wide collective action under Section
216(b) of the FLSA for Plaintiffs' off-the-clock claims.
Doc. No. 202.
* * *
Defendant's argument that the opt-in and Named Plaintiffs
are not similarly situated to support final certification of
the FLSA collective action under Section 216(b) is without
merit. As the Special Master details, the MLOs share the same
job description with similar (if not identical) job duties,
are paid pursuant to the same compensation plan(s), are
subject to the same policies, and assert the same claims for
unpaid off-the-clock overtime wages in this lawsuit. Doc.
No. 180, p. 32.
The remainder of Defendant's arguments are procedural and
regard matters within the sound discretion of the District
Court to manage litigation before it. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16. Trial of a single issue regarding Plaintiffs'
FLSA off-the-clock claims is scheduled to commence, and will
commence, on September 25, 2017. This is no way interferes
with the state subclasses right to receive notice of the
pending state-law claims and to opt-out of the action if they
Doc. No. 216 at 4-5.
detailed factual and legal analysis supporting certification
of the FLSA collective action is set forth in the Special
Master's Second Report. SeeDoc. No. 180 at 1-36.
Precedential Decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in its
precedential Opinion, ruled that it “decline[d] to
exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the FLSA
collective action certification order in this case . . . [and
thus] we will leave undisturbed the District Court certifying
a collective action under the FLSA . . . .” Reinig
v. RBS Citizens, N.A, 912 F.3d 115, 133 (3d Cir. 2018).
following is an extensive quotation from the Opinion of the
Court of Appeals in this matter:
In addition to challenging the District Court's Rule 23
ruling, Citizens also contests the District Court's
non-final FLSA certification order under the doctrine of
pendent appellate jurisdiction. This doctrine
“‘allows [us] in [our] discretion to exercise
jurisdiction over issues that are not independently
appealable but that are intertwined with issues over
which [we] properly and independently exercise [our]
jurisdiction.'” Aleynikov v. Goldman Sachs
Grp., Inc., 765 F.3d 350, 357 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing
E.I. DuPont, 269 F.3d at 202-3). The doctrine is a
narrow one that “should be used ‘sparingly,'
and only when there is sufficient overlap in the facts
relevant to both . . . issues to warrant ...