Wright Close & Barger, LLP (WCB) and Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C. (Munsch Hardt) recently secured an appellate victory for client Signet Builders, Inc. (Signet), with respect to a case originating in the Western District of Wisconsin involving the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and issues of personal jurisdiction for Signet. Munsch Hardt managed the trial work, with WCB handling the appeal.
In a 2-1 decision in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that an FLSA collective action is distinct from a class action and requires specific jurisdiction over each plaintiff’s claim. Additionally, the Court confirmed that jurisdiction of a Federal Court, when service is made through Federal Rule 4(k)(1)(A), is linked to the forum state jurisdictionally inquiry. Two questions were posed on appeal. First, should an FLSA collective action be treated as a class action with general jurisdiction, or more like a mass action or aggregate litigation where one would have to prove specific jurisdiction. Second, should the initial plaintiff’s work under Federal Rule 4(k) establishing jurisdiction qualify every plaintiff and define the scope of jurisdiction.
“We are pleased about the result and are grateful to our legal counsel for their expertise in this Constitutional matter,” said Greg Schonefeld of Signet. “This was an important case, and we are satisfied the court correctly sided in our favor.”
The WCB team, with oral arguments led by Partner Brad Snead, also included Partner Raffi Melkonian, as well as Associate Rachel Willroth. The Munsch Hardt team included Shareholder Dan Pipitone.
“We are thrilled with this outcome for our client, Signet, a Texas-based construction services company,” said Snead. “This decision not only confirms that, in FLSA collective actions, there must be personal jurisdiction over each opt-in plaintiff, but it also resolves key questions about how personal jurisdiction works in federal courts. As the Seventh Circuit stated, ‘when the court asserts its jurisdiction through Rule 4(k)(1)(A) service, all it gets is what a state court would have.’”