Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

DC Court Weighs Whether Bristol-Myers Squibb Applies to Class Actions in Whole Foods Case

April 18, 2018 by D. Matthew Allen

The District of Columbia district court added to the growing collection of orders opining on whether and to what extent the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb applies to class actions. This case involved a putative class of employees suing Whole Foods in an attempt to recover wages pursuant to the upscale grocer’s “Gainsharing” bonus program. The program seeks to incentivize departments in individual stores to perform under budget by distributing budget surpluses to department employees. The lawsuit alleges Whole Foods improperly “shifted” budget surpluses to underperforming departments so it could withhold Gainsharing wages owed to employees.

On a motion to dismiss, Whole Foods challenged the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction based on Bristol-Myers, where the Supreme Court held that a California state court could not exercise jurisdiction over non-resident plaintiffs’ claims in a mass tort action.

First, the District of Columbia district court held that Bristol-Myers barred it from hearing claims by two specific putative class representatives — a Maryland resident who worked at a Virginia store, and an Oklahoma resident who worked at an Oklahoma store — because those plaintiffs failed to allege any claims-related connection to D.C. In contrast, the other named plaintiffs’ claims arose from conduct within the forum because they either lived in D.C. or worked at Whole Foods in the District. The court followed recent D.C. Circuit precedent to hold that the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on specific jurisdiction in federal courts as Bristol-Myers held the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on jurisdiction in state courts (a question the Supreme Court had left unanswered) and dismissed those two class representatives.

Second, however, the court held that Bristol-Myers does not require the dismissal of non-resident putative class members’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction because, even though those individuals may not have a claims-related connection to the forum, Bristol-Myers’s jurisdictional holding “does not apply to class actions.”

The line between the court’s dual holdings is nuanced; on one hand it applied Bristol-Myers’s jurisdictional principles but on the other it distinguished Bristol-Myers as inapplicable in class actions. The former is explained by the parallel between the two named class representatives in Molock and the non-resident plaintiffs in the mass action at issue in Bristol-Myers. Class action or not, the Maryland and Oklahoma class representatives were named plaintiffs in a lawsuit over which the court must have personal jurisdiction. The latter is explained by the fact that Bristol-Myers’ jurisdictional holdings regarding non-resident plaintiffs who were real parties in interest in a mass action are not procedurally equivalent to the posture of unnamed putative class members in class actions. Class actions, unlike mass torts, function as representative suits with class representatives representing the interests of similarly situated individuals (who may later become unnamed plaintiffs pending certification) and putative class actions must satisfy added due process requirements via certification.

Molock v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., Case No. 16-2483 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 2018).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

No Celebration For Yahoo!: Data Breach Claims Survive Motion to Dismiss

Next Article »

Fifth Circuit Dashes Delivery Driver’s Bid to Keep Wage Hour Claims Out of Arbitration
D. Matthew Allen

About D. Matthew Allen

Matt Allen is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.