Friendly Ice Cream Corp.

Connecticut Supreme Court · Labor Law

Labor LawClass ActionsAppellate JurisdictionFinal Judgment Ruleclass certificationdenial of certificationinterlocutory appealfinal judgment

Facts

The plaintiffs, waiters and waitresses employed by the defendant, filed a class action alleging that the defendant unlawfully deducted tip credits from servers' wages for non-service work and failed to pay the full minimum wage required by law. The proposed class included all current or former servers at the defendant's forty-eight Connecticut restaurants whose wages had been reduced by tip credits. The trial court found numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation satisfied, but denied certification because individualized proof of each server's duties and time records meant common issues did not predominate. The plaintiffs sought immediate appellate review of that denial.

Issue

Is an order denying a motion for class certification a final judgment for purposes of appeal? More specifically, does such an order satisfy either prong of the Curcio test for immediate appeal of an otherwise interlocutory order?

Rule

An order denying class certification is not an appealable final judgment unless it satisfies one of the two Curcio prongs. It does not satisfy the first prong because class certification is not a separate and distinct proceeding independent of the main action, and it does not satisfy the second prong because putative class members have no already secured statutory or constitutional right to class status before certification; class status under § 52-105 arises only after the trial court exercises its discretion to certify the class.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Hartford, Maya Ortiz sues Bay Elm Grocers, LLC, alleging the company systematically shorted cashiers on required rest-break pay. She seeks to represent a statewide class, but the trial court denies certification because individualized proof of each cashier’s schedules and missed breaks would predominate; Maya’s individual wage claim remains pending.

May Maya immediately appeal the denial of class certification as a final judgment?

Explanation. An initial order denying class certification is not immediately appealable unless it meets one of the two Curcio prongs. It does not terminate a separate and distinct proceeding because certification is intertwined with the merits and the named plaintiff’s action continues. It also does not destroy a right already secured, because putative class members have no existing statutory or constitutional right to proceed as a class before certification is granted. (Derived from Friendly Ice Cream Corp. (n.d.).)