Supreme Court Limits Review Of Certification Denials

by BakerHostetler

One of the difficulties of class action litigation that continues to vex employers is the frequent inability to obtain meaningful review of certification decisions. Because, the reasoning goes, certification orders are interlocutory in nature, there is no right of immediate review. While since 1998 there has been the potential for review of orders granting or denying certification of Rule 23 class actions under Rule 23(f), the decision whether to review is purely discretionary, akin to a petition for writ of certiorari. That discretion has been exercised in such a way that review of even highly questionable decisions is frequently unavailable and cases can continue to proceed and to increase cost and risk even while a petition for review is pending. These problems are even worse in so-called “conditional certification” decisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), where no review is available at all.

Ironically, while this problem is one primarily facing employers, attempts to find new ways to obtain interlocutory appellate review have come mainly from the plaintiffs’ bar. One method, when faced with the decision not to certify a case (or a decertification order) is for the plaintiffs to dismiss their own claims without prejudice to create a “final appealable order” and then to seek review at that time. We blogged about one such effort, which ultimately proved unsuccessful, in the case of Camesi v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 729 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013), and FLSA case. The Fourth Circuit reached a similar decision in Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2011), while the Ninth and Second Circuits had allowed such tactics.

On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court resolved this split in the circuits in the case of Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, Case No. 15-457 (June 12, 2017). It held 8:0 (although on different grounds) that in cases where plaintiffs dismissed their own claims to obtain a final appealable order to review a prior unfavorable certification order, the court of appeal had no jurisdiction to review the decision at all. While a purely procedural case, this decision highlights the difficulties of all parties seeking appellate review of certification decisions they disagree with and may add support for current legislative proposals to make Rule 23(f) review more widely available.

While not an employment case, the facts of Baker, and the Court’s approach, are both interesting. The Baker case was a consumer action involving a popular gaming console. The plaintiffs first brought suit in the Western District of Washington, but the district court refused to certify the class and the Ninth Circuit denied their request for Rule 23(f) appeal. The plaintiffs then settled their cases on an individual basis. Two years later, however, they filed essentially the same action again, contending that intervening Ninth Circuit authority made certification viable. The district court in this second case disagreed and struck the class action allegations from their complaint. The plaintiffs again sought Rule 23(f) review. Their argument was that the certification decision was the “death knell” of the class and that because the individual cases were too small to maintain on their own, it “effectively kill[ed] the case.” The Ninth Circuit, however, again denied Rule 23(f) review.

As the Supreme Court noted, the plaintiffs at this point could have asked the lower court to certify the case for interlocutory appeal under 29 U.S.C. § 1292(b). They could have continued to litigate before the district court and either ask the court to reconsider certification at some point or await a final decision and appeal then. Or they could have settled again. Instead, they took the route, arguably permitted by the Ninth Circuit in the past, to exercise the tactic of dismissing their own cases and appealing them. This time, at least at first, this tactic worked, as the Ninth Circuit found that it had jurisdiction, reversed the district court, and remanded for further consideration of the certification issue. The Supreme Court accepted review of that decision.

None of the Justices accepted the argument that dismissal under these circumstances would permit review of the underlying certification order. The five-Justice majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsberg, carefully traced the history of 29 U.S.C. § 1291, Rule 23(f), the death-knell theory, and interlocutory review generally. The majority ultimately found on statutory construction grounds that it had no jurisdiction under section 1291 when a plaintiff dismissed his or her own case to obtain appellate review. Justice Ginsberg specifically noted that the tactic would seriously undermine the need for a final appealable order and would also be one-sided in that plaintiffs could use it to obtain review of certification decisions they did not like, while defendants could not. The three-Justice concurrence, authored by Justice Thomas, would have reached the same conclusion, but on Article III grounds, essentially concluding that with the dismissal of the underlying claim there was no longer a valid case or controversy. Justice Gorsuch did not take part in the decision.

The proposed Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017, H.R. 985, passed by the House, would make appeals under 23(f) (either granting or denying certification) non-discretionary, but is drawing opposition from the plaintiffs’ bar in the Senate. If granted, however, it would largely moot the Baker case because a right of interlocutory appeal would automatically exist.

The bottom line: Plaintiffs unsuccessfully seeking class certification cannot force immediate appellate review by dismissing their own cases voluntarily, but pending legislation may broaden the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants to seek immediate appellate review of certification orders.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© BakerHostetler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


BakerHostetler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.