Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Pennsylvania District Court Certifies Class Despite Defendant’s Attempt To “Pick-Off” Class Representatives

September 25, 2014 by Dean A. Morande and Gary M. Pappas

A group of registered nurses formerly employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) in a putative class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in connection with a recalculation of their retirement annuities that OPM was obligated to perform under the retroactive application of the Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act (the “Enhancement Act”).  Plaintiffs promptly moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class.  Thereafter, OPM sent notice to the Plaintiffs regarding a recalculation of their retirement annuities as required under the Enhancement Act.

In opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to certify, OPM argued that Plaintiffs’ could not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a).  In particular, OPM argued that Plaintiffs’ claims were not typical of the putative class because they were already aware of their eligibility for recalculation and some had already received a recalculation.  As a result, Plaintiffs were not entitled to notice did not share the requisite factual nexus with the class members who are unaware of their eligibility.

The district court disagreed.  Relying on Third Circuit precedent, the court observed that when the claim of a proposed class plaintiff is resolved while a class certification motion is pending, that plaintiff is not automatically disqualified from being a class representative as long as she retains a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation.  The court further noted that when a concern is present that a defendant has attempted to “pick off” a named plaintiff’s claim and thwart a class action by unilaterally resolving the plaintiff’s claim, a pending motion for class certification relates back to the filing of the class complaint.  Accordingly, the district court therefore reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion for certification before they had received the unilateral notices from OPM and held that the typicality requirement was established.  The district court ultimately certified the Rule 23(b)(2) class “for the limited purpose of providing notice to the class of this lawsuit and class members’ eligibility for a recalculation of their annuities in accordance with the provisions of the Enhancement Act.”

Sylvia Wigton, et al. v. Elaine Kaplan, 2:10-cv-01768 (W.D. Penn. August 29, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Texas High Court Holds State’s Unclaimed Property Act Does Not Preclude Cy Pres Distribution Of Unclaimed Class Action Settlement Proceeds

Next Article »

District Court Certifies Class Challenging ERISA Plan Amendment
Dean A. Morande

About Dean A. Morande

Dean Morande is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Gary M. Pappas

About Gary M. Pappas

Gary Pappas is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida. Connect with Gary on LinkedIn.

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.