Joseph Resch, et al v. Krapf's Coaches Inc

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: AMBRO, BARRY, Circuit Judges and *RESTANI, Judge. Total Pages: 3. Judge: BARRY Authoring. *(The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation).

Case: 13-3947

Document: 003111657394

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/20/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 13-3947
_____________
JOSEPH RESCH,
ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Appellant
v.
KRAPF'S COACHES, INC.
______________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 11-cv-06893)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 12, 2014
____________
Before: AMBRO and BARRY, Circuit Judges
and RESTANI,* Judge
(Opinion Filed: June 20, 2014)
____________
OPINION
____________

The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of International
Trade, sitting by designation.
*

Case: 13-3947

Document: 003111657394

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/20/2014

BARRY, Circuit Judge
Appellants, current and former employees of Krapf’s Coaches, Inc. (“KCI”),
appeal the order of the District Court granting summary judgment to KCI on appellants’
claim for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Because the appeal was
taken from an order that is not final within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we will
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In 2011, Appellants initiated this action, alleging violations of both the FLSA and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”). KCI moved for summary judgment
on the FLSA claim, but not the PMWA claim. The District Court 1 granted KCI’s motion
for summary judgment on August 29, 2013. On September 10, 2013, the Court entered
an order, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, which stated that the outstanding
PMWA claim was “dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs renewing the
PMWA claim only in the event that: (i) Plaintiffs appeal from the District Court’s
August 29, 2013 order granting summary judgment in Defendant’s favor with respect to
Plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act claim, see Docs. 57-58, and (ii) the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals decides such appeal in Plaintiffs’ favor.” (App. at 758.)
We have “adhered consistently to the general rule that we lack appellate
jurisdiction over partial adjudications when certain of the claims before the district court
have been dismissed without prejudice.” Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Scottsdale
Ins. Co., 316 F.3d 431, 438 (3d Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). While we have held
1

The District Court had jurisdiction over the FLSA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
and over the PMWA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2

Case: 13-3947

Document: 003111657394

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/20/2014

that, “[i]n some circumstances, the path to finality may be shortened through agreement
of the parties,” we have consistently held that “a final judgment under section 1291 is a
decision by the district court that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for
the court to do but execute the judgment.” Verzilli v. Flexon, Inc., 295 F.3d 421, 424 (3d
Cir. 2002) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978)) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

Here, because Appellants’ PMWA claim was dismissed

“without prejudice,” the order of the District Court is not final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

3