Skip to content

Menu

ChannelsPublishersSubscribe
LexBlog, Inc. logo
LexBlog, Inc. logo
ProductsSub-MenuBlogsPortalsTwentySyndicationMicrositesResource Center
Join
Search
Close
Join the Movement. Blog 4 Good

D.C. Circuit Avoids Decisive Ruling on Personal Jurisdiction in Class Actions

By J. Thomas Richie, Dylan C. Black & Richard W.F. Swor on March 18, 2020
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn

D.C. Circuit Avoids Decisive Ruling on Personal Jurisdiction in Class ActionsWe have repeatedly mentioned the long-awaited decision in Molock v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. from the District of Columbia Circuit. While we hoped this opinion would finally provide some circuit-level clarity about how the Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers Squibb decision applies in the class action context, the court instead largely dodged this issue. There are good and useful aspects to the decision though, and it leaves open the door to applying Bristol-Myers to class action claims. However, the wait for a definitive ruling continues.

A quick refresher on the facts: Molock arose from Whole Foods’ alleged manipulation of its incentive-based bonus program. Current and former employees sued in the District Court for the District of Columbia and brought various state law claims. Importantly, the employees sought to represent a putative class of “past and present employees of Whole Foods” — regardless of where the employees lived. Whole Foods sought to dismiss on multiple grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction, the denial of which was the subject of this interlocutory appeal.

In a 2-1 split opinion, the D.C. Circuit determined that deciding whether Bristol-Myers applies to class action claims would be premature because the putative class members are not yet parties to the action. As a decision to dismiss putative class members before class certification under Rule 23 would be, in its view, “purely advisory,” the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Whole Foods’ motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Don’t miss the dissent. Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman criticized the majority’s decision to avoid addressing the Bristol-Myers issue. As he points out, the challenge was not the court’s jurisdiction over the putative class members but was rather a challenge on the named plaintiffs’ entitlement to bring those claims on behalf of putative class members. Judge Silberman explained why Bristol-Myers should apply before class certification at the Rule 12 phase. Any impact on the plaintiffs’ ability to bring class action claims would not be so overwhelming because the claims could still be brought where corporations are subject to general jurisdiction (here, by “driving 110 miles down the road and filing this class action in Wilmington”).

Even though this is not the landmark circuit-level opinion we hoped it would be, there are still important takeaways from Molock.

First, waiting to apply Bristol-Myers until class certification is not our preferred result because it has the potential to impose expansive discovery costs. Judge Silberman pointed out the danger of the majority’s approach as it relates to extensive class discovery. To illustrate, the Molock plaintiffs intend to take discovery of payroll records from more than 200 Whole Foods stores, with the potential to expand the class and add nearly 300 other stores. Compared to the five D.C. stores that would be at issue otherwise, Judge Silberman acknowledged the extreme difference in scope and cost. The majority brushed off this concern because, in their view, “concerns about discovery costs must yield to Supreme Court precedent” and district courts have wide-ranging discretion to limit overly burdensome requests. We see no principled reason to impose the burden of class-wide discovery costs when there are no facts that could support subjecting the defendant to nationwide jurisdiction in a forum.

Second, while Molock is not all good for class defendants, neither is it all bad. If the D.C. Circuit thought that Bristol-Myers could not apply to class actions, it easily could have said so. By not addressing the question, the majority signaled a willingness to apply the same personal jurisdiction rules to class actions as apply in non-representative cases. Indeed, by deferring questions of personal jurisdiction to class certification, the court treated absent class members the same way it treats putative class representatives. If that result bears out, Bristol-Myers applies to class actions.

Finally, the dissent effectively outlines potential arguments for companies to make going forward. Beyond just the negative effects of expansive discovery, Judge Silberman repeatedly pointed out the fallacies in many arguments against applying Bristol-Myers in the class action context. This dissent thus provided a roadmap for arguments that may convince other judges and justices in the future. For now, companies facing class exposure will almost certainly continue to assess the need to move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) at the outset of a case and maintain that objection all the way through class certification.

Shortly, we will examine how the Seventh Circuit, in a decision released the same day as Molock, addressed the application of Bristol-Myers to class actions.

Photo of J. Thomas Richie J. Thomas Richie

Thomas Richie has defended dozens of class actions involving federal statutory claims, breach-of-contract, negligence, products liability, warranty, data breach, tax and financial services issues. He represents clients across industries, including insurance, retail, construction, defense, pharmaceutical, energy, environmental, finance, wireless communication, and manufacturing.

Read more about J. Thomas RichieEmail
Photo of Dylan C. Black Dylan C. Black

Dylan Black focuses his practice on complex civil litigation in state and federal courts, with particular emphasis on professional liability, class action, state and federal securities fraud cases, and insurance coverage litigation. Dylan’s experience in professional liability litigation includes the defense of public…

Dylan Black focuses his practice on complex civil litigation in state and federal courts, with particular emphasis on professional liability, class action, state and federal securities fraud cases, and insurance coverage litigation. Dylan’s experience in professional liability litigation includes the defense of public accounting and auditing firms, outside directors, audit committee members, and lawyers in a variety of cases. View articles by Dylan

Read more about Dylan C. BlackEmail Dylan's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Richard W.F. Swor Richard W.F. Swor

Richard Swor joined the firm in Fall 2019 as an associate in the Litigation Practice Group.

Richard graduated (summa cum laude) from Belmont University College of Law, where he served as the executive events editor of the Belmont Law Review.

Richard Swor joined the firm in Fall 2019 as an associate in the Litigation Practice Group.

Richard graduated (summa cum laude) from Belmont University College of Law, where he served as the executive events editor of the Belmont Law Review. His note, Long Term Solutions to the Short-Term Problem: An Analysis of the Current Legal Issues Related to Airbnb and Similar Short-Term Rental Companies with a Proposed Model Ordinance, was published in Vol. 6, Issue 1 of that journal.

Read more about Richard W.F. SworEmail Richard's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Class Action & Mass Torts
  • Blog:
    Declassified
  • Organization:
    Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Stay Connected

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers

Company

  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service

Products

  • Products
  • Blogs
  • Portals
  • Twenty
  • Syndication
  • Microsites

Support

  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Red Clover Advisors Blog
  • Plane-ly Spoken
  • FCC Law Blog
  • California Employment Law
  • Privacy Compliance & Data Security
Copyright © 2021, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By LexBlog