{"id":2913,"date":"2026-05-04T10:00:55","date_gmt":"2026-05-04T14:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2913"},"modified":"2026-05-04T10:00:56","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T14:00:56","slug":"the-disorganization-defense-north-carolina-federal-judge-finds-that-litigation-practices-of-plaintiffs-counsel-are-sufficient-grounds-to-deny-class-and-collective-certification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/05\/04\/the-disorganization-defense-north-carolina-federal-judge-finds-that-litigation-practices-of-plaintiffs-counsel-are-sufficient-grounds-to-deny-class-and-collective-certification\/","title":{"rendered":"The Disorganization Defense: North Carolina Federal Judge Finds That Litigation Practices Of Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel Are Sufficient Grounds To Deny Class And Collective Certification"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Betty Luu, and Ryan T. Garippo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>On April 22, 2026, in Ayers, v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc., No. 23-CV-00581, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89819 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 2026), Chief Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied <\/a>several motions to certify various claims as class and collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the \u201cFLSA\u201d) and the North Carolina Wage And Hour Act (the \u201cNCWHA\u201d).\u00a0 This decision underscores the responsibility of plaintiffs\u2019 counsel to manage a case and present the court with a viable plan to bring their clients\u2019 claims through trial.\u00a0 Otherwise, plaintiffs\u2019 counsel runs the risk that the court will not certify these claims at all.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This decision emerges in the context of a series of seven-year-long lawsuits against GKN Driveline North America, Inc. (\u201cGKN\u201d), the supplier of all-wheel-drive and other automotive components, for several major automotive manufactures.  Plaintiffs James Ayers, John Carson, and Tameka Ferges (collectively, \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) brought three separate wage-and-hour lawsuits, asserting claims under the FLSA and the NCWHA.  Plaintiffs alleged that GKN required them to perform work off the clock, including before and after shifts, and during unpaid meal breaks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2018, Plaintiffs filed an earlier case against GKN.  In that case, Plaintiffs alleged GKN had two policies that resulted in underpayment of their wages: (1) a \u201ctime rounding\u201d policy; and (2) an \u201cautomatic deduction\u201d policy for meal breaks. The Court originally conditionally certified an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class action under both of those theories.  But the court ultimately decertified both the FLSA collective and the Rule 23 class, finding that \u201cindividual issues would swamp any attempt to resolve the claims on the class or collective basis.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *5<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After that decision, Plaintiffs \u2013 represented by the same counsel \u2013 refiled three similar lawsuits, which split the claims based on GKN\u2019s plant locations, but otherwise left the theories mostly intact.  Plaintiffs then filed renewed motions for class and collective certification in each of the three actions and again asked the Court to allow them to proceed on a representative basis.  The Court\u2019s opinion, for all three cases, followed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In her 28-page opinion, Chief Judge Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied Plaintiffs\u2019 motions based largely on manageability grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chief Judge Eagles explained that \u201cmanageability principles are explicit in the requirements for a proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class\u201d and that \u201cwider case management concerns remain relevant in the collective context.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at 13.  Thus, it is generally a plaintiff\u2019s attorney\u2019s responsibility to present the court with an \u201corganized presentation of claims, organized discovery and motions practice, and organized submission of evidence.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>But here, Plaintiff\u2019s counsel failed to present a manageable class or collective in at least four different ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First<\/em><\/strong>, and perhaps most fundamentally, Chief Judge Eagles found that \u201cplaintiffs propose no efficient method of resolving class-wide liability and individual damages across three different subclasses.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *18.  Although Plaintiffs\u2019 theory was premised on the notion that GKN had a \u201cde facto off-the-clock\u201d policy, Plaintiffs did not explain how they planned to \u201cefficiently prove that each and every nonexempt employee was subject to that de facto policy and, even more crucially, how each class member was injured by this policy.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *18-19.  Chief Judge Eagles found this omission troubling given that \u201cplaintiffs have had years to think about these problems\u201d and could not present the court with a manageable solution.  Id. <\/em>at *19.  But Chief Judge Eagles did not stop there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second<\/em><\/strong>, having dispensed with the omissions in Plaintiffs\u2019 theory of case manageability, Chief Judge Eagles turned to Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel who she reasoned has \u201cnot demonstrated the organization, diligence, and mindset required to prosecute a complex case.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *21.  Chief Judge Eagles explained that because she often had to prompt Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel to prosecute the case, via supplemental briefing and discovery, she had lost confidence in their ability to manage the docket.  This problem was compounded by Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel\u2019s filing of \u201cseveral \u2018emergency\u2019 motions and amended \u2018emergency motions\u2019\u201d which underscored their inability to \u201chandle ordinary litigation problems.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *21-22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third<\/em><\/strong>, Chief Judge Eagles characterized Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel\u2019s Rule 23 analysis as the product of an unreliable \u201cnarrator of the record.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *22-23.  She described Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel\u2019s submissions as \u201cinaccurate at best and misrepresentations at worst.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *23.  Similarly, for the FLSA claims, Chief Judge Eagles held that the \u201cfactual representations about the evidence in the plaintiffs\u2019 briefing on an FLSA collective do not always hold up to scrutiny.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *31-32.  These inaccuracies did not give her confidence that Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel would be able to present a manageable case through trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth<\/em><\/strong>, as to the FLSA claims, Chief Judge Eagles concluded by finding that \u201cthe plaintiffs have not proposed any plan, much less a workable plan, for the aggregation of all these claims.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *31.  For example, Chief Judge Eagles highlighted that plaintiffs \u201chave not explained how they will manage presenting evidence on all the different work activities at issue and [across] three different plants.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>She noted that \u2013 although it is often possible for plaintiffs\u2019 counsel to create such theories —  \u201c[i]f they are unable to make the required showing after over seven years of litigation, there is no reason to think they will be able to do so by the time these cases are called for trial.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *33.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, Chief Judge Eagles explained that she \u201chas certified several dozen class actions over the past fifteen years and is familiar with how to deal with disagreements between parties about managing and trying common and individual issues.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *26.  \u201cThe problem here is not that management might be hard\u201d but rather \u201cthat the plaintiffs proffer no plan for management . . . [a]nd the Court has no confidence that counsel will devise a workable plan.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>Thus, the motions were denied in their entirety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ayers<\/em> presents two key lessons for corporate counsel grappling with how to manage these complex cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first lesson is that the value of class and collective claims often can hinge on the identity<\/em> and competency<\/em> of opposing counsel.  Where plaintiffs\u2019 counsel is savvy, competent, and organized, the value of otherwise weaker claims can go up.  In these cases, competent plaintiffs\u2019 counsel can often be the difference in whether a class is certified, which is often the difference between millions of dollars of potential of exposure and not.  Thus, corporate counsel should weigh the competency of his or her adversaries when assessing the risk that a putative class or collective action poses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second lesson is that hiring experienced defense counsel and developing an aggressive litigation strategy are critical for success in such cases.  In Ayers<\/em>, Chief Judge Eagles observed defense counsel\u2019s strategy and explained \u201cit has been clear for years that GKN intended to hold the plaintiffs to their burden of proof at every stage on every issue, as is their right.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *22, n.13.  As a result, any delay by GKN ultimately did not negate the deficiencies by Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel.  It takes experienced counsel to toe this line and keep the focus on a plaintiff\u2019s conduct.  Corporate counsel should consider such experience when deciding who is best to represent their organizations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Betty Luu, and Ryan T. Garippo Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On April 22, 2026, in Ayers, v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc., No. 23-CV-00581, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89819 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 2026), Chief Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “The Disorganization Defense: North Carolina Federal Judge Finds That Litigation Practices Of Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel Are Sufficient Grounds To Deny Class And Collective Certification”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,42],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,138,127],"class_list":["post-2913","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","category-wage-hour-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Riley","first_name":"Jennifer A.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/jenniferriley.html","description":"Read Jennifer's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":138,"user_id":722,"is_guest":0,"slug":"bluu","display_name":"Betty Luu","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/04\/luubetty-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Luu","first_name":"Betty","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/bettyluu.html","description":"Read Betty's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":127,"user_id":692,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rgarippo","display_name":"Ryan Garippo","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/09\/garipporyan-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Garippo","first_name":"Ryan","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/ryangarippo.html","description":"Read Ryan's Bio<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2913","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2913"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2913\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2913"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}