Murphy v. Labor Source, LLC

Background

Marcquise Murphy and Ratanya Rogers brought a proposed collective and class action on behalf of manual laborers. They alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, and Minnesota wage laws, including claims for unpaid overtime, minimum wages, expenses, payroll-card accounts, recordkeeping, prompt payment, and wage statements.

BluSky previously challenged personal jurisdiction—the court’s power to hear claims against a defendant—over FLSA collective members who worked outside Minnesota. The court concluded that BluSky had consented to Minnesota jurisdiction by registering with the Minnesota Secretary of State and appointing an agent for service of process. The court relied on Eighth Circuit precedent holding that registering an agent under Minnesota law could establish consent to jurisdiction for any cause of action. United States District Judge Michael J. Davis adopted that determination. BluSky later moved to dismiss the out-of-state collective claims, but Judge Davis denied that motion.

Motion for an Immediate Appeal

BluSky asked the court to certify for an interlocutory appeal the question whether, in light of later Supreme Court decisions, registering to do business in Minnesota could still subject a foreign company to general personal jurisdiction under the Eighth Circuit’s earlier precedent. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court has finished the case.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification requires three things: a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement about the answer, and a finding that an immediate appeal would materially advance the end of the litigation. Such appeals are generally reserved for exceptional cases, and the party seeking certification carries the burden of showing that immediate review is warranted.

Analysis

The court found that the jurisdiction question was controlling because the court could not decide the out-of-state FLSA claims without jurisdiction over BluSky. It also found substantial grounds for disagreement because courts within the Eighth Circuit had reached differing conclusions about whether the earlier precedent remained valid after the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning general jurisdiction.

The court nevertheless found that the third requirement was not met. Regardless of how an appeal resolved the jurisdiction question, the litigation would continue as to the Minnesota class against both BluSky and One Source. The court also cited the Eighth Circuit’s recent refusal to permit an interlocutory appeal involving a similar jurisdiction issue in a class action. Because an immediate appeal would not materially advance the end of this litigation and could produce piecemeal appeals, the court denied certification.

Disposition

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered that BluSky Restoration Contractors, LLC’s Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal was DENIED. The order addressed only BluSky’s request for an immediate appeal; it did not resolve the underlying wage claims or finally decide the jurisdiction question on appeal.