from the Court of Claims of Ohio No. 2017-00845JD
Mansell Law, LLC, Gregory R. Mansell, and Carrie J. Dyer; The
Friedmann Firm LLC, Rachel A. Sabo, and Peter G. Friedmann,
Yost, Attorney General, and Randall W. Knutti, for appellee;
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Robert N. Webner, Mark
A. Knueve, Michael J. Ball, and Natalia M. Cabrera, special
counsel for appellee.
Gregory R. Mansell.
1} Plaintiffs-appellants, a proposed class led by
James Oakley and Channing Capehart, appeal from a judgment
entry of the Court of Claims of Ohio denying their motion for
conditional class certification in their suit against
defendant-appellee, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical
Center ("OSUWMC"). Appellants additionally appeal
from the trial court's denial of their motion for leave
to file a second notice of supplemental evidence. For the
following reasons, we sua sponte dismiss the appeal due to
lack of a final appealable order.
Facts and Procedural History
2} On October 18, 2017, appellants filed a
collective action complaint in the trial court on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated hourly,
non-exempt employees of OSUWMC. The complaint alleged OSUWMC
was in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), codified at 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., and
owed appellants unpaid wages stemming from its practice of
rounding clock-in and clock-out times. Additionally,
appellants asserted a Civ.R. 23 class action against OSUWMC
due to the same rounding practice, alleging a violation of
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, codified at R.C.
3} Prior to conducting discovery, appellants filed,
on January 22, 2018, a motion for conditional class
certification requesting the trial court conditionally
certify the class of "[a]ll current or former hourly,
non-exempt employees of [OSUWMC] employed between October 18,
2014 and the present, who are or were subject to the
'Clock In and Clock Out Rounding Policy.'"
(Pls.' Pre-Discovery Mot. at 3.) In their briefing,
appellants relied on evidence of 17 individuals that they
alleged OSUWMC failed to properly compensate based on
OSUWMC's rounding practice. Appellants then filed an
"unopposed notice of supplemental evidence in support of
their pre-discovery motion for conditional class
certification" on February 9, 2018. OSUWMC filed a
response on April 6, 2018, and appellants, with leave of
court, filed a reply in support of their motion on April 30,
2018. Following a May 10, 2018 status conference, the parties
filed a joint exhibit providing further details on the
clock-in and clock-out procedures at issue in the case.
4} After the parties completed briefing on the issue
of conditional class certification but before the magistrate
had issued a recommendation on appellants' motion,
appellants sought leave to file a second notice of
supplemental evidence for the magistrate to consider in
deciding whether to grant conditional class certification.
The proposed supplemental evidence consisted of a sampling of
time records and an analysis of 39 different hourly,
non-exempt employees. OSUWMC filed a substantive response in
5} In an August 8, 2018 decision, the magistrate
denied appellants' motion for leave to file their second
notice of supplemental evidence in support of their motion
for conditional class certification. Specifically, the
magistrate noted that the briefing period for appellants'
motion for conditional class certification closed on April
30, 2018, but appellants did not seek leave to file their
second notice of supplemental evidence until July 23, 2018.
Additionally, the magistrate recommended the trial court deny
appellants' motion for conditional class certification on
the grounds that appellants "failed to present ...