Sinclair v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.

Background

Rodney Sinclair asked for permission to notify members of the proposed class that the district court had denied his motion for class certification. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. opposed the request.

Sinclair argued that significant press coverage of a related lawsuit may have led proposed class members to believe that their claims were covered by this case and to refrain from pursuing those claims themselves. The court considered the request under Rule 23(d), which gives courts discretion to order notice to proposed class members after class certification has been denied when they may be harmed without notice.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Sinclair provided virtually no support for his claim that the related lawsuit had received significant publicity. The court also stated that the publicity of which it was aware focused on claimed promises of employment, rather than state-law wage-and-hour claims. The court therefore found it difficult to believe that the publicity had caused anyone to forgo filing wage-and-hour claims.

The court gave an additional reason for not ordering notice at that time: Sinclair had filed a renewed motion for class certification, as permitted by the district court’s decision denying the first motion. The court concluded that notifying proposed class members about the first denial could be inefficient and confusing if the renewed motion were granted.

Disposition

The court denied Sinclair’s request to send notice to the proposed class about the district court’s denial of class certification.

Classification and Scope

This is a procedural order concerning notice to proposed class members after a class-certification denial. It did not decide the merits of the underlying wage-and-hour claims or the renewed class-certification motion.