Nucor Corporation v. Quinton Brown

Filing

Published Court order filed [999403028] denying Motion for permission to appeal (FRAP 5) [999307062-2]. Copies to all parties.. [14-154]

Appeal: 14-154

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

FILED:

July 25, 2014

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-154
(2:04-cv-22005-CWH)

NUCOR CORPORATION; NUCOR STEEL-BERKELEY,
Petitioners,
v.
QUINTON BROWN; JASON GUY; RAMON ROANE; ALVIN SIMMONS;
SHELDON
SINGLETARY;
GERALD
WHITE;
JACOB
RAVENELL,
individually and on behalf of the class they seek to
represent,
Respondents.

O R D E R

GREGORY, Circuit Judge:
In

this

Corporation
sought

class

and

action

Nucor

decertification

environment claims.

Steel
of

litigation,
Berkeley

a

class

Defendants

(collectively,
alleging

Nucor

“Nucor”)

hostile

work

The district court denied Nucor’s motion,

and Nucor now petitions for interlocutory review of the refusal
to decertify.

We deny the petition as untimely.

Appeal: 14-154

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

I.
This litigation concerns substantive allegations of racial
discrimination, see Brown v. Nucor Corp., 576 F.3d 149 (4th Cir.
2009), however, only the procedural history is relevant to this
order.

The

district

court

initially

denied

the

plaintiffs’

motion for class certification, and we vacated and remanded for
certification.

Id. at 160.

In 2011, the district court issued

an order (the “certification order”) certifying two classes:
promotions
impact

class--involving

claims--and

a

disparate

hostile

work

treatment
environment

and

a

disparate

class.

The

district court denied a motion to reconsider the certification
order,

and

Nucor

decertification.

subsequently

filed

four

motions

for

After denying the first motion, the district

court granted in part the second motion for decertification (the
“2012 Order”).

In light of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131

S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the 2012 Order decertified the promotions
class yet left intact the hostile work environment class.
the

court

denied

a

third

motion

to

decertify,

Nucor

After
sought

decertification of the hostile work environment class in light
of

Comcast

district

Corp.

court

v.

denied

Behrend,
this

133

motion.

2

S.

Ct.
Nucor

1426

(2013).

now

embarks

The
on

a

Appeal: 14-154

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/25/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

second attempt to file an interlocutory appeal challenging the
refusal to decertify the hostile work environment class. 1

II.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) permits review of
decisions granting or denying class certification.

Scott v.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 733 F.3d 105, 111 (4th Cir. 2013).
An

appeal

from

a

certification

fourteen days of the order.
(4th Cir. 2013).

order

must

be

filed

within

Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 318

The time for appeal runs once the original

order on certification is entered, and begins anew only after
the court rules on a timely motion to reconsider that original
order.

Blair v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 181 F.3d 832, 837

(7th Cir. 1999); see also In re DC Water & Sewer Auth., 561 F.3d
494, 495-96 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

The “rigid and inflexible” nature

of this deadline is “well-established.”

Fleischman v. Albany

Med. Ctr., 639 F.3d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 2011).

An out-of-time

motion for reconsideration--regardless of whether the motion is
styled as one for reconsideration or for decertification--cannot
“restart the clock for appellate review” under Rule 23(f).

Gary

v. Sheahan, 188 F.3d 891, 892 (7th Cir. 1999).

1

Nucor petitioned for interlocutory review of the 2012
Order, challenging the district court’s refusal to decertify the
hostile work environment class. We denied the petition.
3

Appeal: 14-154

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/25/2014

Pg: 4 of 5

Furthermore, the time for appeal will not reset when a court
rules on certification motions filed subsequent to the original
ruling so long as the later rulings do not alter the original
ruling.

See In re DC Water & Sewer Auth., 561 F.3d at 496

(joining the Third, Fifth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits
in adopting this rule).
class-action

status

This is because “[a]n order that leaves

unchanged

from

what

was

determined

by

a

prior order is not an order ‘granting or denying class action
certification.’”
(10th Cir. 2006).

Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183, 1191
These subsequent motions are just attempts to

amend the original certification order, and attempts to appeal
them are untimely if filed more than fourteen days after the
order granting or denying certification.

Fleischman, 639 F.3d

at 31-32.
In

light

of

petition untimely.
two

years

after

these

parameters,

we

find

Nucor’s

instant

The fourth motion for decertification, filed
the

certification

order,

represents

Nucor’s

latest attempt at persuading the district court to decertify the
hostile

work

environment

class.

The

district

court’s

post-

certification orders never altered the status of the hostile
work

environment

class

and

thus

were

denying certification as to that class.
1191.

not

orders

granting

or

Carpenter, 456 F.3d at

We will not render the Rule 23(f) deadline “toothless” by

permitting Nucor to “easily circumvent Rule 23(f)’s deadline by
4

Appeal: 14-154

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/25/2014

Pg: 5 of 5

filing a motion to amend or decertify the class at any time
after
hostile

the

district

work

court’s

environment

original

class.

order”

Fleischman,

certifying
639

F.3d

at

the
31

(quoting In re DC Water & Sewer Auth., 561 F.3d at 496-97). 2

The

latest

of

the

after

the

hostile

Nucor
work

could

have

environment

appealed
class

the

was

certification

fourteen

days

district court denied the motion to reconsider the certification
order.

That date passed more than three years ago.

Entered

at

the

direction

of

Judge

Gregory

with

the

concurrences of Judge King and Judge Agee.
PETITION DENIED

For the Court
/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

2

In arguing that the petition is timely, Nucor cites to
non-binding precedent that permitted what would have been an
otherwise untimely petition.
McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 672 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2012). The
Seventh Circuit created the exception because it found Wal-Mart
to be a “milestone” decision that significantly altered class
action jurisprudence and clearly required reversal of the
challenged order.
Id. at 485-87.
We are not persuaded that
Comcast rises to this level demanding exceptional treatment in
this case.

5