{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-14","fingerprint":"ewai:us:88b5b2","proof":"sha256:8373bb77a058ad8a1d08768b5a697d26d3e0832d14c6380b3d07ee21193185f3","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"PUBLISHED","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"No. 25-2191","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"JAMES MEBANE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Plaintiff – Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"and","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"ANGELA WORSHAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Plaintiff,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC.,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Defendant – Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00892-CCE-LPA)","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Argued: May 6, 2026 Decided: June 2, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Dismissed by published opinion. Judge Rushing wrote the opinion, in which Judge","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Niemeyer and Judge Thacker joined.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"ARGUED: Gilda Adriana Hernandez, LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"PLLC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Paul DeCamp, EPSTEIN, BECKER &","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"GREEN, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Laura Fisher, THE LAW","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 25-2191 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 1 of 11","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_24","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"Adriana S. Kosovych, EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C., New York, New York, for","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 25-2191 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 2 of 11","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"RUSHING, Circuit Judge:","paragraph_id":"para_29","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"Plaintiff–Appellant James Mebane brought a class-action lawsuit against his former","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"employer, Defendant GKN Driveline North America, Inc., alleging that violations of the","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA)","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"resulted in unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid wages. The district court certified","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and conditionally certified an FLSA","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"collective action. After developments in the litigation, however, the court decertified the","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"classes and the collective action.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Mebane now appeals the district court’s decertification order. But before he filed","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"his notice of appeal, Mebane voluntarily settled his individual FLSA and NCWHA claims","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"in the district court. That means Mebane lacks standing to appeal the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"decertification order. As a result, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"GKN operates three manufacturing facilities in North Carolina. At all three","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"facilities, GKN had a policy of rounding employees’ time entries. At first, GKN had a 7/8","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"rounding policy, under which “seven (7) minutes [would] round down and eight (8)","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"minutes [would] round up” to the nearest quarter hour. J.A. 302. For example, if an","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"employee’s shift was scheduled to start at 6:00 a.m. and he clocked in at 6:07 a.m., his time","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"entry would be rounded down to 6:00 a.m. If he clocked in at 6:08 a.m., however, his time","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"entry would be rounded up to 6:15 a.m. Eventually, GKN changed its 7/8 rounding policy","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"to a 3-minute rule. Under that rule, GKN would round time entries to the scheduled start","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 25-2191 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 3 of 11","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"of a shift if the employee clocked in within 3 minutes of the shift’s scheduled start time.","paragraph_id":"para_53","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"Similarly, if an employee clocked out within 3 minutes of the shift’s scheduled end time,","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"his time entry would be rounded to the shift’s scheduled end. In January 2020, GKN","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"stopped rounding time.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"GKN also had a policy of automatically deducting meal breaks from employees’","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"recorded time. Under that policy, GKN would automatically deduct a 30-minute, unpaid","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"meal break from employees’ recorded hours. Employees were not required to clock in and","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"out when taking meal breaks, and the policy deducted the 30-minute breaks from","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"employees’ time without regard to whether employees took their break or continued","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"working. But “employees [were] expected to be completely relieved of their work duties","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"during breaks.” J.A. 2301.","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"Plaintiffs James Mebane and Angela Worsham—both former GKN employees—","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"sued GKN on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.1 They alleged in their","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"operative complaint that GKN’s rounding and automatic deduction policies resulted in","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"“unpaid overtime compensation” and “unpaid wages,” in violation of both the FLSA and","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"the NCWHA.2 J.A. 2169, 2188–2192.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"1 Worsham is not a party to this appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"2 Mebane also asserted, on his own behalf, an Age Discrimination in Employment","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Act claim and several North Carolina common law claims. He settled those individual","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"non-wage claims before the district court issued the decertification ruling at issue in this","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 25-2191 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 4 of 11","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule 23 and conditional collective","paragraph_id":"para_77","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"action certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The district court largely granted Plaintiffs’","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"motion. First, it conditionally certified an FLSA collective action based on GKN’s","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"rounding policy. See Mebane v. GKN Driveline N. Am., Inc., 337 F.R.D. 479, 485–486","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"(M.D.N.C. 2020). Second, it certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class to pursue an NCWHA claim","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"also based on GKN’s rounding policy. Id. at 492–494. And third, it certified another Rule","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"23(b)(3) class, this one to pursue an NCWHA claim based on GKN’s automatic deduction","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"policy. See Mebane v. GKN Driveline N. Am., Inc., No. 1:18-cv-892, 2022 WL 3043655,","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"at *4–7 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 2, 2022).","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"Eventually, GKN moved to decertify the classes and the collective action, and the","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"district court granted GKN’s motion. See Mebane v. GKN Driveline N. Am., Inc., No. 1:18-","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"cv-892, 2023 WL 3435007 (M.D.N.C. May 12, 2023). The court found that an FLSA","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"collective action based on GKN’s rounding policy would be unsustainable given the","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"individualized inquiries that would be necessary to determine whether employees’ rounded","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"minutes were compensable and how many minutes were unlawfully deducted from each","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"employee’s time. Id. at *4–5. The district court also observed that, based on data from","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"GKN’s expert, it was “unclear” “whether all employees were even impacted by the","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"rounding policy in a negative manner.” Id. at *6. The court therefore decertified the FLSA","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"collective action, and it decertified the Rule 23(b)(3) class based on GKN’s rounding policy","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"for the same reasons. Id. As for the Rule 23(b)(3) class based on the automatic deduction","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"policy, the court found that a class action would be inappropriate given evidence that not","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"all employees regularly worked during the automatically deducted 30-minute meal breaks.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 25-2191 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 5 of 11","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"Id. at *8. The court also found that individualized inquiries would be necessary to","paragraph_id":"para_101","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"determine whether GKN supervisors actually or constructively knew that employees were","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"working during the automatically deducted period. Id. For these reasons, the district court","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"decertified the Rule 23(b)(3) class based on GKN’s automatic deduction policy. Id. at *9.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"After the classes and collective action were decertified, the case proceeded on","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"Plaintiffs’ individual FLSA and NCWHA claims. But in November 2024, Plaintiffs settled","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"those claims. Specifically, the parties agreed that GKN would pay Plaintiffs a sum of","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"money “which represent[ed] adequate consideration in full and final settlement of the","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"claims released herein, but excluding Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees and expenses which","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Plaintiffs’ counsel [would] petition [for] separately” at a later date. ECF No. 231 at 2. The","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"agreement’s release provision in paragraph 7 stated:","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"By signing this Agreement, Plaintiffs are generally waiving all remaining","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"claims, whether or not raised in the litigation, with the exception of Plaintiffs’","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"right to petition for attorneys’ fees and costs, in addition to, appealing the","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"Court’s May 12, 2023 decertification order, including via substitute [sic] of","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"named plaintiffs, to proceed accordingly with appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"Id. at 4 (citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"Paragraph 8 of the settlement agreement advised that Plaintiffs’ counsel would","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"petition for attorneys’ fees and costs “no later than December 17, 2024.” Id. And","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"paragraph 9 made clear that “[t]he Parties specifically understand and agree that Plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"preserve the right to appeal this Court’s May 12, 2023 decertification order.” Id. Lastly,","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"paragraph 5 provided that “Plaintiffs retain the right to request a monetary service award","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"in connection with” certain related cases. Id. at 3.","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 25-2191 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 6 of 11","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"Plaintiffs petitioned for attorneys’ fees and costs by the deadline provided in the","paragraph_id":"para_126","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"settlement agreement, and GKN opposed the petition. Once the petition was fully briefed,","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"the district court accepted the parties’ settlement agreement in a consent judgment and","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"dismissed all remaining substantive claims with prejudice. The court then denied","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"Plaintiffs’ petition for fees and costs without prejudice. Plaintiffs did not refile their","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"petition for fees and costs. Mebane then appealed the district court’s decertification order.3","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"Mebane’s primary contention on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"in decertifying the FLSA collective action and the two Rule 23(b)(3) classes. He also takes","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"issue with the standard the district court applied in evaluating the collective action, the","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"timing of the court’s Rule 23(c)(2)(B) notice for the automatic deduction class, and the","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"court’s reliance on declarations from current GKN employees. GKN defends the district","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"court’s conclusions on the merits. But it also argues that Mebane lacks standing to appeal","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"the district court’s decertification order because he voluntarily settled his FLSA and","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"NCWHA claims. Because we agree with GKN that Mebane lacks standing to pursue this","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"appeal, our discussion begins and ends with that issue.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"“‘To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"be extant at all stages of review . . . .’” Toms v. Allied Bond & Collection Agency, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"179 F.3d 103, 105 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Arizonans for Off. English v. Arizona, 520 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"3 Mebane did not appeal the denial of his petition for attorneys’ fees and costs.","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 25-2191 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 7 of 11","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"43, 67 (1997)). “On appeal, just as at trial, a party must hold a concrete interest in the","paragraph_id":"para_148","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"litigation to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"“The Supreme Court has recognized two such [concrete] interests in the class action","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"context.” Id. First, a class representative has a concrete interest “in the substantive claim","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"he or she asserts.” Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88, 99 (4th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"2011). Second, a class representative may assert “a distinct procedural right to represent","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"the interests of similarly situated individuals,” id., which can give rise to an interest “in","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"shifting the costs of litigation to the remainder of the class,” Toms, 179 F.3d at 105; see","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 336–337 (1980). A plaintiff, however,","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"can bargain these interests away “by negotiating a settlement agreement with the","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"defendant.” Toms, 179 F.3d at 105.","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we have recognized that a plaintiff who","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"involuntarily loses an interest in his substantive claims nevertheless may be able to rely on","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"the “second, representative interest” to establish standing to appeal an adverse certification","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"ruling. Rhodes, 636 F.3d at 99–100 (citing U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"388, 402 (1980); Roper, 445 U.S. at 340); see also Toms, 179 F.3d at 106. But we have","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"squarely held that “when a putative class plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the individual","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"claims underlying a request for class certification,” the second, representative interest","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"cannot supply standing to appeal because “there is no longer a ‘self-interested party","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"advocating’ for class treatment in the manner necessary to satisfy Article III standing","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"requirements.” Rhodes, 636 F.3d at 100 (emphasis added) (citing Geraghty, 445 U.S. at","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"403); accord Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23, 45 (2017) (Thomas, J., concurring in","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 25-2191 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 8 of 11","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"the judgment) (“Class allegations, without an underlying individual claim, do not give rise","paragraph_id":"para_172","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"to a ‘case’ or ‘controversy.’”); see Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 404 n.10 (reserving the question).","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"Applying these principles, Mebane lacks standing to appeal the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"decertification order. In the settlement agreement, Mebane “generally waive[d] all","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"remaining claims” in this suit. ECF No. 231 at 4. As Mebane concedes, that general waiver","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"covered his substantive FLSA and NCWHA claims—i.e., the claims underlying the","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"collective action and the Rule 23 classes. Mebane therefore has no remaining interest in","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"his “substantive claim[s]” to establish standing to pursue this appeal. Rhodes, 636 F.3d at","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"99; see Toms, 179 F.3d at 105–106.","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"Nor can Mebane rely on any interest in shifting the costs of litigation to the","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"remainder of the class or his contractual reservation of the right to appeal the decertification","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"order, to seek attorneys’ fees and costs, and to seek a service award in related cases. Rhodes","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"categorically held that when a putative class plaintiff “has voluntarily settled or dismissed”","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"his individual substantive claims, he no longer possesses “a sufficiently concrete interest","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"in the certification question to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"636 F.3d at 99; see id. at 100. Because Mebane voluntarily dismissed his individual claims","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"underlying the request for class certification, he lacks standing to appeal the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"decertification order. Id. at 100; see Ruppert v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 705 F.3d 839, 844","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"(8th Cir. 2013) (“agree[ing] with” and adopting this Court’s decision in Rhodes).","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"Mebane protests that, unlike the settlement agreement in Toms and the stipulation","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"of dismissal in Rhodes, his settlement agreement with GKN explicitly preserved the right","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"to appeal the decertification order, seek attorneys’ fees and costs, and request a service","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 25-2191 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 9 of 11","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"award in connection with related cases. According to Mebane, our inquiry turns on the","paragraph_id":"para_196","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"language of the parties’ settlement agreement, and because he purported to preserve some","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"interests in having the decertification order reversed, he has standing to appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"Rhodes directly forecloses Mebane’s assertion. It is true that, there, the Court","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"contrasted the terms of the parties’ stipulated dismissal with the language of the settlement","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"agreement in Toms. See Rhodes, 636 F.3d at 100. The plaintiff in Toms released all his","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"individual claims and class-based interests, whereas the stipulation in Rhodes dismissed","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"the plaintiffs’ individual claims without mentioning their representative interests. See id.;","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"Toms, 179 F.3d at 105–107. Yet the Rhodes Court ultimately rejected the idea “that the","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"language of a plaintiff’s settlement agreement is determinative of that plaintiff’s ‘stake’ in","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"an appeal,” concluding instead that the Court must “focus [its] review on the standing","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"requirements of Article III.” 636 F.3d at 100. The Court then broadly held that a plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"who “voluntarily dismisses the individual claims underlying a request for class","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"certification” has no standing to appeal a district court’s class certification ruling. Id. That","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"holding in no way depended on the language of the parties’ stipulated dismissal. Rhodes","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"controls here, and Mebane therefore lacks standing to appeal the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"decertification of the Rule 23(b)(3) classes.","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"To be sure, Rhodes dealt only with Rule 23 class actions. It did not address whether","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses individual claims underlying an FLSA collective","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"action lacks standing to appeal an adverse certification ruling. That said, Rhodes’s logic","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"applies equally to a representative plaintiff appealing an adverse certification ruling in an","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"FLSA collective action. The Third Circuit, citing Rhodes, has held that the lead plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 25-2191 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 10 of 11","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"in an FLSA collective action “extinguishe[s] . . . any residual representational interest that","paragraph_id":"para_220","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"[he] may have once had” by voluntarily dismissing his individual claims with prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 729 F.3d 239, 247 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Rhodes,","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"636 F.3d at 100; Ruppert, 705 F.3d at 844). Given our decision in Rhodes, we agree and","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"conclude that Mebane also lacks standing to appeal the district court’s decertification of","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"the FLSA collective action.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"For the foregoing reasons, Mebane lacks standing to appeal the district court’s order","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"decertifying the two Rule 23(b)(3) classes and the FLSA collective action. We therefore","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"DISMISSED","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 25-2191 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 11 of 11","paragraph_id":"para_231"}],"word_count":2586,"cites":["520 U.S.\n3","445 U.S. 326","445 U.S.\n388","582 U.S. 23","179 F.3d 103","636 F.3d 88","705 F.3d 839","729 F.3d 239"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"597f95c980867c8a069502671849ae8355219b50483ba44ead8339a2bafd9ade","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-25-02191/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-25-02191-0.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-03T21:43:18.317+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02","verification":{"stored_sha256":"597f95c980867c8a069502671849ae8355219b50483ba44ead8339a2bafd9ade","recomputed_sha256":"597f95c980867c8a069502671849ae8355219b50483ba44ead8339a2bafd9ade","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-14T16:59:43.628Z"}},"hash":"sha256:8373bb77a058ad8a1d08768b5a697d26d3e0832d14c6380b3d07ee21193185f3","version":"legal-2026-10-14","expires":"2026-10-15T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-14+legal-2026-10-14+2026-10-14T16:51:16","content_hash":"sha256:8373bb77a058ad8a1d08768b5a697d26d3e0832d14c6380b3d07ee21193185f3","revalidate_after":"2026-10-14T17:59:43.795Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca4-25-2191-2026-06-02","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-a3ade1aebb502afbe95be9bcda46c35c","response_hash":"sha256:8373bb77a058ad8a1d08768b5a697d26d3e0832d14c6380b3d07ee21193185f3"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:06:25.371Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca4-25-2191-2026-06-02&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":10926}}