Samuel Calderon v. GEICO General Insurance Co

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cv-01958-RWT. [999370950]. [13-2096, 13-2149]

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

Pg: 1 of 15

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2096

SAMUEL CALDERON, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals; MICHAEL HEADLEY; AARON
KULSIC; KENNETH MILLER; MICHAEL CREAMER; GEORGE WOOD;
ROBERT DEMARTINO; JOHN HALLIDAY; JAMES L. HANSON; THOMAS F.
BRADY; DANA FERRIN; MAUREEN AYLING; CANDIDO CUBERO; THOMAS
FITZGERALD;
WILLIAM
DOLINSKY;
MARVIN
HOURIGAN;
DAVID
MCCAMLEY; AUGUSTUS STANSBURY, JR.; JOAN BISCHOFF; RANDALL
GIBSON; VINCENT GRECO; TERESA HARTEY-ADAMETZ; THOMAS LOWE;
DAVID MCENRY; JENNIFER RICCA; ANITA SINGH; BRYAN UTTERBACK;
PATRICK WEISE; LEAH HAMILTON; DENNIS FULTON; EBERHARD
GROSSER;
JOSEPH
MILES,
JR.;
RICKY
MCCRACKEN;
THOMAS
STURGIS; CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN; MICHAEL RUSSELL; RANDALL
STEWART; LAVERNE HOLMES; THOMAS DAVIDSON, JR.; SHANNON
BOYD; ANTHONY DEAN, JR.; FRANCISCO NOGALES; JOHN GHETTI;
GERALD DEXTER; CLAUDE REIHER; STEVEN MCBRIDE; PHILLIP
RONDELLO; ROBERT MERRY,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
GEICO
GENERAL
INSURANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

COMPANY;

GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES

Defendants – Appellants,
and
GEICO CORPORATION; GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; GEICO CASUALTY
COMPANY; DOES 1-10; MICHAEL BROWN,
Defendants.

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

Pg: 2 of 15

13-2149

SAMUEL CALDERON, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals; MICHAEL HEADLEY; AARON
KULSIC; KENNETH MILLER; MICHAEL CREAMER; GEORGE WOOD; ROBERT
DEMARTINO; JOHN HALLIDAY; JAMES L. HANSON; THOMAS F. BRADY;
DANA
FERRIN;
MAUREEN
AYLING;
CANDIDO
CUBERO;
THOMAS
FITZGERALD;
WILLIAM
DOLINSKY;
MARVIN
HOURIGAN;
DAVID
MCCAMLEY; AUGUSTUS STANSBURY, JR.; JOAN BISCHOFF; RANDALL
GIBSON; VINCENT GRECO; TERESA HARTEY-ADAMETZ; THOMAS LOWE;
DAVID MCENRY; JENNIFER RICCA; ANITA SINGH; BRYAN UTTERBACK;
PATRICK WEISE; LEAH HAMILTON; DENNIS FULTON; EBERHARD
GROSSER; JOSEPH MILES, JR.; RICKY MCCRACKEN; THOMAS STURGIS;
CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN; MICHAEL RUSSELL; RANDALL STEWART;
LAVERNE HOLMES; THOMAS DAVIDSON, JR.; SHANNON BOYD; ANTHONY
DEAN, JR.; FRANCISCO NOGALES; JOHN GHETTI; GERALD DEXTER;
CLAUDE REIHER; STEVEN MCBRIDE; PHILLIP RONDELLO; ROBERT
MERRY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
GEICO
GENERAL
INSURANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

COMPANY;

GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES

Defendants – Appellees,
and
GEICO CORPORATION; GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; GEICO CASUALTY
COMPANY; DOES 1-10; MICHAEL BROWN,
Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Roger W. Titus, Senior District
Judge. (8:10-cv-01958-RWT)

Argued:

May 13, 2014

Decided:

2

June 6, 2014

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

Pg: 3 of 15

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Appeals dismissed by published opinion.
Chief Judge Traxler
wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Senior Judge Davis
concurred.

ARGUED: Eric Hemmendinger, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Matthew Hale Morgan,
NICHOLS
KASTER,
PLLP,
Minneapolis,
Minnesota,
for
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
ON BRIEF: Hyland Hunt, AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS
HAUER
&
FELD
LLP,
Washington,
D.C.,
for
Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Timothy
C.
Selander,
NICHOLS
KASTER, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellees/CrossAppellants.

3

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

Pg: 4 of 15

TRAXLER, Chief Judge:
Government

Employees

Insurance

Company

and

GEICO

General

Insurance Company (together, “GEICO”) appeal a district court
order

granting

partial

summary

judgment

against

them

on

the

issue of liability in an action asserting denial of overtime pay
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), see 29 U.S.C. § 201
et seq.

The plaintiffs cross-appeal an order granting partial

summary judgment against them on several issues relating to the
remedy

to

be

interlocutory

awarded.
and

we

Concluding

lack

that

jurisdiction

these

to

appeals

consider

are

them,

we

dismiss the appeals.
I.
GEICO

is

plaintiffs

in

in

the
this

business
matter

of

providing

are

insurance.

security

The

investigators

(“Investigators”) who currently work, or previously worked, for
GEICO.

The

primarily
fraudulent.

Investigators

investigating

work

claims

in
that

GEICO’s
are

Claims

suspected

Department
of

being

GEICO classifies its Investigators as exempt from

the FLSA’s overtime pay protections.
In 2010, the plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of a class
seeking recovery of overtime pay they claimed GEICO wrongfully
withheld in violation of the FLSA and New York state law.

The

complaint

the

alleges

that

GEICO

improperly

classified

Investigator position as exempt from overtime under the FLSA and
4

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

the law of New York.
R.

&

Regs.

compensatory
relief.

tit.
and

After

See 29 U.S.C. § 213(a); N.Y. Comp. Codes

12,

§ 142-2.2..

liquidated
the

Pg: 5 of 15

The

damages,

district

court

complaint

among

certified

other
the

requests
forms

class,

of
the

plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, and GEICO moved
for summary judgment, on the issue of liability.
court

granted

rejecting

as

the
a

plaintiffs’

matter

of

law

motion
GEICO’s

and

The district

denied

contention

GEICO’s,
that

the

Investigators fell within the FLSA’s “administrative function”
exemption.

See Calderon v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 917 F. Supp. 2d

428 (D. Md. 2012).
The parties later filed cross-motions for summary judgment
on several disputed remedy issues.

Considering these motions,

the court ruled that because GEICO acted in good faith, GEICO
did not act willfully and thus the statute of limitations for
plaintiffs’ claims extended only for two years.
reasons,

the

court

also

ruled

that

the

For similar

plaintiffs

were

entitled to liquidated damages or prejudgment interest.

not
And

finally, the court determined that because the plaintiffs were
paid fixed salaries regardless of the varying number of hours
they worked, the method of overtime described in Overnight Motor
Transportation v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (1942), applied to this
case.

5

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

The

Filed: 06/06/2014

district

court

Pg: 6 of 15

then

entered

a

“Stipulated

Order

Relating to Remedy” that it described as a “final judgment.”
J.A. 109, 112.

That order “contain[ed] a complete formula for

the computation of backpay” based on the rulings that the court
had made and the parties’ stipulations.

J.A. 109.

The order

noted that both parties reserved the right to appeal the rulings
of the district court underlying the order and that the order
would “have no effect unless a judgment of liability is entered
and sustained after all judicial review has been exhausted.”
J.A. 109.

The backpay formula that the order adopted would

produce

amount

an

of

backpay

to

which

each

plaintiff

was

entitled depending upon the total pay received and the total
time worked for each two-week pay period within the applicable
limitations

period.

The

order

further

stated

that

“[t]he

backpay calculations will be performed by a mutually acceptable
entity with right of review and confirmation by Defendants’ and
Plaintiffs’ counsel.”

J.A. 112.

It also provided that the

district court “shall have jurisdiction to resolve or supervise
the

resolution

parties

are

of

unable

any
to

issue

concerning

resolve.”

J.A.

the

remedy

111.

that

There

was

the
no

limitation on the right of either party to appeal the district
court’s decisions.
GEICO has now appealed the district court’s order granting
partial

summary

judgment

to

the
6

plaintiffs

on

the

issue

of

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

Pg: 7 of 15

liability, and the plaintiffs have cross-appealed several of the
district court’s rulings regarding remedy issues.
II.
Before considering the merits of these appeals, we must
determine whether we possess jurisdiction to do so.

See Dickens

v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 677 F.3d 228, 229–30 (4th Cir. 2012).
Because we conclude that we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the
appeals.
With certain limited exceptions, our appellate jurisdiction
extends only to the review of “final decisions of the district
courts of the United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 1291; see Cobbledick

v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 324-25 (1940); In re Carefirst
of Md., Inc., 305 F.3d 253, 255 (4th Cir. 2002).
this

rule

“is

to

combine

in

one

review

all

The purpose of
stages

of

the

proceeding that effectively may be reviewed and corrected if and
when final judgment results.”

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949).

“In the ordinary course a

‘final decision’ is one that ends the litigation on the merits
and

leaves

judgment.”

nothing

for

the

court

to

do

but

execute

the

Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of

Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emp’rs, 134 S.
Ct. 773, 779 (2014).
does

not

fix

Accordingly, “a judgment on liability that

damages

is

not

a

final

judgment

because

the

assessment of damages is part of the merits of the claim that
7

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

must be determined.”

Pg: 8 of 15

Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Dynegy Mktg.

& Trade, 415 F.3d 354, 358 (4th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other
grounds by Ray Haluch Gravel Co., 134 S. Ct. at 779-80.
question

of

whether

an

order

is

final,

“[t]he

label

On the
that

a

district court attaches to an order it issues does not control.”
Id.
The finality issue before us is akin to that presented in
United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227
(1958).

In that case, the plaintiff sued the government seeking

to recover for $7,189.59 in federal stamp taxes the plaintiff
claimed were illegally collected from it and for interest on the
taxes from the date they were paid.

See id. at 228.

The

plaintiff later moved for summary judgment, and, after hearing
the motion, the district court filed an opinion on April 14,
1955, finding that the plaintiff had paid $ 7,012.50 in stamp
taxes and $177.07 in interest but making no finding concerning
on what date or dates those amounts were paid.
29.

The

district

court

concluded

by

See id. at 228-

stating

plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was granted.
229.

that

the

See id. at

The court Clerk noted the granting of the motion on the

docket on the same day.

See id.

Eventually, on May 24, 1955,

the district court issued a formal document entitled “Judgment”
that ordered that the plaintiff could recover from the United
States

$7,189.57

plus

interest
8

and

costs,

for

a

total

of

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

Pg: 9 of 15

$7,769.37, and the Clerk entered this judgment on the docket the
same day.

See id.

On July 21, 1955, the government filed an appeal from the
See id. at 230. 1

May 24, 1955, order.
motion

in

the

court

of

appeals

The plaintiff filed a

to

dismiss

the

appeal,

maintaining that it had been taken outside the 60-day period
that

Federal

government

Rule

to

of

Civil

appeal

an

Procedure

adverse

73(a)

allowed

judgment.

See

for

the

id.

The

plaintiff argued that the final judgment was entered on April
14, not on May 24, and thus came too late.
of

appeals

Supreme

agreed

Court

relevant

and

dismissed

reversed,

here,

the

however.

Court

noted

the

See id.

appeal.

See
that

id.
in

The court

See
at

an

id.

236.

The

action

As

is

seeking

monetary damages, a judgment may be embodied in the opinion of
the court but only if it “embodies the essential elements of a
judgment for money and clearly evidences the judge’s intention
that it shall be his final act in the case.”
Court

held

requirements
plaintiff

that

the

because

paid

the

April
it

did

taxes.

14

opinion

not

determine

See

1

id.

at

Id. at 232.

did
on
234.

not

meet

what

The
these

dates

Without

the
that

Although the Supreme Court reported that the government’s
notice of appeal identified the date of the entry of the order
appealed from as May 25, 1955, rather than May 24, 1955, see
United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227, 230
(1958), that discrepancy is immaterial to the issues before us.
9

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

Pg: 10 of 15

determination, it could not be ascertained from the opinion the
amount of interest to be added to the amounts the plaintiff had
paid.

See id.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the final

judgment was entered on May 24, when the total amount to be
recovered was determined.

See id. at 234-36.

The order before us here is not final for similar reasons.
It is true that the district court has completed its work on
many of the issues that will eventually be used to determine the
amount of damages to which each plaintiff is entitled.

However,

the order does not embody the essential elements of a money
judgment

because

necessary

to

the

compute

court
the

has

amount

not

found

of

damages

all

of

due;

the
nor

facts
has

it

determined how the backpay formulas would apply to particular
facts.

See Buchanan v. United States, 82 F.3d 706, 707 (7th

Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (holding that judgment was not final
when “it failed to specify either the amount of money due the
plaintiff or a formula by which the amount of money could be
computed in mechanical fashion”); see also Associated Stores,
Inc. v. Industrial Loan & Inv. Co., 313 F.2d 134, 137 (4th Cir.
1963) (holding that there was no final judgment when the amount
of damages depended upon the amount of money collected by one of
the parties after a particular date on particular contracts but
the district court did not specifically determine that amount).
And

while

the

district

court’s
10

order

provides

that

initial

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

Pg: 11 of 15

calculations will be performed by an entity acceptable to both
the plaintiffs and GEICO, the parties have both retained the
right to “review and confirm[]” those determinations and the
district

court

has

retained

“jurisdiction

to

resolve

or

supervise the resolution of any issue concerning the remedy that
the parties are unable to resolve.”

J.A. 111, 112.

Thus, it

cannot be said of the order before us that it left nothing more
for the district court to do than enforce a judgment.
At oral argument, it was argued that Ram v. Paramount Film
Distributing

Corporation,

278

F.2d

191

(4th

Cir.

1960)

(per

curiam), supports a conclusion that the order here is a final
one.

We disagree.

The issue in that appeal, as in F. & M.

Schaefer Brewing Co., concerned the timeliness of an appeal and
depended on whether a particular order was final.
motion

picture

distributors

brought

suit

to

In that case,

recover

certain

moneys they claimed to be owed them by certain exhibitors of
films.

See id. at 192.

The cases were referred to a Special

Master so that he could take testimony and make factual findings
and legal conclusions.

See id.

recommended

plaintiffs

that

the

The Special Master eventually
were

entitled

to

certain

amounts, including interest at 3 percent per year from October
1, 1958, until the date of the judgment.

See id.

After the

district court overruled objections, the court on September 9,
1959, ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs as per the
11

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

Special Master’s recommendation.

Pg: 12 of 15

See id.

And on September 10,

1959, the Clerk of Court entered an order confirming the Special
Master’s report.

See id.

Twenty days later, on September 30,

1959, the plaintiffs submitted to the Clerk in each of the cases
a

document

damages

entitled

each

“Final

defendant

or

Judgment,”

which

group

defendants

of

set

forth
owed

plaintiff with interest from the date of the judgment.

the
each

See id.

However, the calculations were incorrect insofar as the amounts
included interest from October 1, 1958, to September 30, 1959,
on the amounts the Special Master had found owing; this was
erroneous because the Special Master’s calculations had already
included interest up to October 1, 1958, so that the document
submitted to the Clerk on September 30, 1959, “included interest
on interest.”

Id.

The Clerk signed these documents and entered

them on his docket on October 3, 1959.
signed by the judge.

See id.

They were not

See id.

We held that the judgment signed by the district judge on
September 9, 1959, and entered by the Clerk on his docket the
next day was the final judgment because, while it did not set
out the total amount to be paid, that amount was determinable
from the statement that a specific sum was due by each defendant
with interest at 3 per cent from October 1, 1958.
193-94.

See id. at

In so doing, we cited F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. for

the rule that “a money judgment may not be deemed final unless
12

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

Pg: 13 of 15

it determines or specifies the means of determining the specific
amount of recovery.”

Id. at 193.

Ram is distinguishable from the present case, however.
critical

fact

in

Ram

was

that

the

district

court

in

The
its

September 9, 1959, order had already found all the facts and
resolved all questions of law necessary to determine the amount
of

recovery.

All

that

remained

was

the

performing the necessary calculations.

ministerial

act

of

See Republic Nat. Gas

Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62, 68 (1948) (“[I]f nothing more than
a

ministerial

regarded

as

act

remains

to

concluding

reviewable.”).

be

the

done
case

.

.
and

.,

the

is

decree

is

immediately

That simply is not true of the case before us,

where any number of factual or legal issues might arise that
will

affect

the

amount

of

damages,

as

was

reflected

by

the

district court’s retention of jurisdiction to resolve any of the
parties’ disputes regarding the damages determination.

See id.

at 70 (noting that while simple application of a formula is
ministerial,

determinations

judgment” are not).

“requir[ing]

the

exercise

of

The district court’s work was not completed

and the judgment thus was not final.
With no final decision to review, we have no choice but to
dismiss the appeals before us.

“In a civil damage suit such as

this, a judgment for the plaintiff that determines liability
for,

but

does

not

fix

the

amount
13

of,

damages

is

appealable

Appeal: 13-2096

solely

Doc: 47

under

appropriate

Filed: 06/06/2014

28

U.S.C.

certification

§

Pg: 14 of 15

1292(b),
by

the

which

requires

district

court

not

only

but

also

application within ten days to the Court of Appeals and that
court’s grant,

in its discretion, of permission to appeal.” 2

Pemberton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 996 F.2d 789, 791
(5th Cir. 1993).

In this case, the district court did not

attempt to certify under § 1292(b), and even had it done so, we
would

lack

application

jurisdiction
for

leave

to

because

there

appeal.

See

has
id.

been

no

timely

Accordingly,

we

dismiss the appeals.
2

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) provides:

When a district judge, in making in a civil action an
order not otherwise appealable under this section,
shall be of the opinion that such order involves a
controlling question of law as to which there is
substantial ground for difference of opinion and that
an immediate appeal from the order may materially
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he
shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of
Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of
such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit
an appeal to be taken from such order, if application
is made to it within ten days after the entry of the
order: Provided, however, That application for an
appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the
district court unless the district judge or the Court
of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.
At oral argument the possibility was also discussed of
certifying the relevant issues under Rule 54(b).
See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b).
However, that rule is inapplicable here, as it
pertains only to judgments that entirely dispose of one or more
claims. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 74244 (1976).

14

Appeal: 13-2096

Doc: 47

Filed: 06/06/2014

Pg: 15 of 15

III.
Concluding

that

we

lack

jurisdiction

to

consider

the

appeals before us, we dismiss. 3
DISMISSED

3

We note that should the parties eventually appeal from a
final judgment, we would entertain a motion to adopt the briefs
and joint appendix from this appeal.
15