Filed: Jan. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2372 STELLA ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AMERICA'S LIVING CENTERS, LLC, a for profit limited liability corporation, organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina, doing business as CAROLINA LIVING CENTER; CAROLINA LIVING CENTER #1; ZION HILL LIVING CENTER; GOLDEN HARVEST LIVING CENTER #1; GOLDEN HARVEST LIVING CENTER #2; UNION MILLS LIVING CENTER #1;
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2372 STELLA ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AMERICA'S LIVING CENTERS, LLC, a for profit limited liability corporation, organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina, doing business as CAROLINA LIVING CENTER; CAROLINA LIVING CENTER #1; ZION HILL LIVING CENTER; GOLDEN HARVEST LIVING CENTER #1; GOLDEN HARVEST LIVING CENTER #2; UNION MILLS LIVING CENTER #1; U..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2372
STELLA ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AMERICA'S LIVING CENTERS, LLC, a for profit limited
liability corporation, organized under the laws of the State
of North Carolina, doing business as CAROLINA LIVING CENTER;
CAROLINA LIVING CENTER #1; ZION HILL LIVING CENTER; GOLDEN
HARVEST LIVING CENTER #1; GOLDEN HARVEST LIVING CENTER #2;
UNION MILLS LIVING CENTER #1; UNION MILLS LIVING CENTER #2;
UNION MILLS LIVING CENTER #3; FOUR SEASONS FAMILY CARE HOME;
TRANSYLVANIA LIVING CENTER; KENNETH HODGES, individually &
as mbr/mgr of America's Living Ctrs LLC, & owner &/or mgr of
Carolina Living Ctrs; Carolina Living Ctr 1; Golden Harvest
Living Ctrs 1 & 2; Union Mills Living Ctrs 1, 2 & 3; Four
Seasons Family Care Home; & Transylvania Living Ctr,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00257-MR-DLH)
Submitted: October 30, 2012 Decided: January 4, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph H. Cassell, ERON LAW OFFICE, P.A., Wichita, Kansas;
Robert Carpenter, ADAMS HENDON CARSON CROW & SAENGER, P.A.,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Grant B. Osborne,
WARD AND SMITH, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In granting a motion for costs under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(d) (authorizing an order directing a
plaintiff, who previously dismissed an action and filed a second
action based on the same claim, to pay the costs of the previous
action), the district court ordered that the parties confer on
the amount of costs and, failing agreement, that the defendants
submit a bill of costs and affidavits to enable the court to
determine the amount. The plaintiff appeals this order.
Because it is interlocutory, however, we dismiss the appeal and
remand the case for further proceedings.
Stella Andrews brought a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) against America’s Living
Centers, LLC, and Kenneth Hodges, alleging that she and other
similarly situated employees were owed unpaid overtime and
minimum wages. After the district court conducted a hearing on
the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Andrews voluntarily dismissed
the complaint under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). On that same day,
however, she filed this action under the FLSA, again making the
same claims and naming as defendants America’s Living Centers,
LLC, and Hodges, as well as 10 family care homes that they
allegedly own and operate. In response to this action, the
defendants filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 41(d), for an award
of costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in defending the
3
previously dismissed action and to stay the proceedings in this
action until Andrews paid the costs of the prior action.
A magistrate judge granted the defendants’ Rule 41(d)
motion and directed the parties to confer on the amount of costs
reasonably incurred by the defendants. His order provided that
if the parties could not agree on the amount of costs, the
defendant should submit a bill of costs with supporting
affidavits, and the court would determine the amount. The order
also provided that the action be stayed pending Andrews’ payment
of the costs after they were so determined. The district court
affirmed the magistrate’s order and issued an order directing
the parties to comply with it.
From the district court’s order, Andrews filed this
appeal.
We conclude that the district court’s order is an
interlocutory order over which we do not have jurisdiction. An
appellate court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-
46 (1949).
Andrews argues that the district court’s order is an
appealable collateral order. But it is well established that in
order for a collateral order to be appealable, it must “[1]
4
conclusively determine the disputed question, [2] resolve an
important issue completely separate from the merits of the
action, and [3] be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a
final judgment.” Will v. Hallock,
546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006)
(alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
Here, where the district court has yet to determine
even the amount of costs to be awarded, the question is not
conclusively determined, and the order undoubtedly remains
interlocutory and unappealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
5