Caicedo v. The Anthem Companies, Inc.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:21-cv-05642
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Caicedo v. The Anthem Companies, Judge Caproni ordered clarification about an attempted interlocutory appeal and stayed all deadlines pending the appeal.
The plaintiff, Caicedo, and the parties’ deadlines in the case were affected. The plaintiff had to clarify whether she was seeking certification for an interlocutory appeal, and all case deadlines were stayed pending resolution of the appeal.
What happened
In Caicedo v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., the plaintiff filed a letter after a prior order denying her motion to certify a collective action. She argued that the order effectively ended her class and collective claims without allowing discovery and asked for an immediate appeal.
The court noted that the plaintiff had filed a notice of appeal without first asking the district court to certify the order for an immediate appeal. The court also noted that she had not filed a motion to certify a class under Rule 23 or asked to change the discovery deadline to pursue discovery for such a motion.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the plaintiff to state by November 10, 2022, whether her November 4 letter was intended to request certification of an interlocutory appeal and, if so, why that request was appropriate after the notice of appeal had been filed. The court stayed all deadlines while the appeal was resolved.
The detailed version
- Caicedo v. The Anthem Companies, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05642
- Sarah Netburn
- Nov. 7, 2022
Background
The plaintiff’s letter followed the court’s September 29, 2022, order denying her motion to certify a collective action. The plaintiff argued that the earlier order effectively disposed of her class and collective claims because she had not been allowed individual or class discovery before filing the certification motion and was not given permission to renew it. She also argued that the order raised legal questions suitable for an immediate, or interlocutory, appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
The plaintiff had already filed a notice of appeal. In her letter, she maintained that her individual and Rule 23 claims remained in the case and argued that a stay was not appropriate because those claims had to continue.
Court’s response
The court stated that the plaintiff had not explained why she filed a notice of appeal without first asking the district court to certify the earlier order for interlocutory appeal. The court also observed that the plaintiff’s letter appeared to treat the earlier order as denying a motion for class certification, but that she had not actually filed a motion for class certification under Rule 23. The court further noted that she had not asked to modify the discovery deadline to allow discovery for such a motion.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the plaintiff to inform the court by November 10, 2022, whether her November 4, 2022, letter was intended to be a motion asking the court to certify the earlier order for interlocutory appeal. If so, the plaintiff also had to explain why that request was appropriate after she had filed a notice of appeal. The court stayed all deadlines pending resolution of the appeal. The text provided does not show that the court granted certification of the interlocutory appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.