UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VALERIE R. WHITE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 16-856 (CKK) HILTON HOTELS RETIREMENT PLAN, et al., Defendants. Memorandum Opinion (October 7, 2020) Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ [74] Renewed Motion for Class Certification. As explained in detail herein, Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition is impermissibly “fail-safe.” This threshold defect renders certification of the proposed class improper. Yet, because this deficiency may be susceptible to remedy, the Court will permit Plaintiffs a final opportunity to renew their motion for class certification. The Court will also discuss additional impediments to class certification it has identified at this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, upon consideration of the briefing, 1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court shall DENY Plaintiffs’ [74] Renewed Motion for Class Certification WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Valerie R. White, Eva Juneau, and Peter Betancourt (“Plaintiffs”) bring this putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) with respect to certain vesting determinations made by the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan (the “Plan”). This matter 1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents: • Second Am. Class Action Compl. (“Second Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 50; • Mem. in Supp. of Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Class Cert. (“Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 74-2; • Mem. of P. & A. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Class Cert., (“Defs.’ Opp’n”), ECF No. 79; and • Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Class Cert., (“Pls.’ Reply”), ECF No. 76. 1 was noticed as related to Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, No. 98–cv–1517 (CKK) (D.D.C.) (“Kifafi”), an action over which the Court concluded its jurisdiction in December 2015, after more than 17 years of litigation. See Kifafi, 752 F. App’x 8, 9 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 15, 2019) (Mem.) (per curiam). In this action, Plaintiffs, who are former Hilton employees and putative beneficiaries of the Plan, seek to address grievances that did not fall within the narrow classes certified in the Kifafi litigation. Now, after the Court denied their initial motion for certification without prejudice, see Order, ECF No. 62, at 1, Plaintiffs have renewed their motion for class certification, which is presently pending before the Court, see Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 74. Plaintiffs ground this motion in the allegations within their Second Amended Complaint. See id. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to represent three separate subclasses of claimants. First, Plaintiff Valerie R. White alleges that Hilton unlawfully applied a so-called “elapsed time method” to employee service rendered before 1976, resulting in an improper calculation of her years of vesting credit under the Plan. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 41–44; Pls.’ Mot., Ex. 1 (White Service Sheet). Plaintiff Eva Juneau alleges that Hilton improperly denied vesting credit to employees, like her, for service rendered at certain “non-participating” locations. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 57–58; Pls.’ Mot, Ex. 2 (Juneau Service Sheet). Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Hilton failed to keep proper documentation ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals