Sam Hargrove v. Sleepys LLC

Summary

The Third Circuit held that renewed motions for class certification under Rule 23(c)(1)(C) must be treated as initial motions, not subject to the heightened motion-for-reconsideration standard. The court also clarified that the ascertainability requirement does not demand identification of all class members at certification; affidavits combined with records can suffice, and where an employer fails to keep legally required records, employees may prove ascertainability through "just and reasonable inference" under *Tyson Foods* and *Mt. Clemens*. The district court erred by focusing on gaps in Sleepy's records and requiring too much specificity, so the denial of class certification was reversed and remanded.

Holdings

1. District courts should treat renewed motions for class certification as they would initial motions under Rule 23, not as motions for reconsideration.
2. The district court misapplied the ascertainability standard by requiring Appellants to identify class members at the certification stage; plaintiffs need only show that class members can be identified.
3. Where an employer has failed to keep records it was required to keep by law, employees can prove ascertainability by producing sufficient evidence to define their proposed class as a matter of just and reasonable inference.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in treating the renewed motion for class certification as a motion for reconsideration.
2. Whether the district court misapplied the ascertainability standard.
3. Whether the court should extend Tyson Foods and Mt. Clemens to the ascertainability determination.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded