Whether each opt-in plaintiff in a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action must independently establish personal jurisdiction in the forum where the action is filed, or whether the defendant's contacts with the forum state satisfy personal jurisdiction requirements for all opt-in plaintiffs

No question identified. : Application to the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett for an Extension of Time Within Which to File a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13(5), Applicant Jose Ageo Luna Vanegas hereby moves for an extension of time of 60 days, to and including June 13, 2025 for the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari. This motion is filed more than ten days before the deadline for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. Unless an extension is granted, the deadline for filing the petition for a writ of certiorari will be April 14, 2025.! In support of this request, Mr. Luna Vanegas states as follows: 1. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rendered its decision on August 16, 2024 (Exhibit 1) and denied a timely petition for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc on January 13, 2025 (Exhibit 2). This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1). 2. This case presents the issue of whether each opt-in plaintiff in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action must establish personal jurisdiction in the court where the case was filed. The Seventh Circuit panel determined that they must establish personal jurisdiction. As the dissenting judges on denial of rehearing en banc noted, the decision “expand[s] the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, ' The deadline would be April 13, 2025, but that is a Sunday. 2 582 U.S. 255 (2017), and interpret[s] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A) as a jurisdictional requirement for each opt-in plaintiff.” Ex. 2 at 3. 3. In this case, Jose Ageo Luna Vanegas, the plaintiff, was hired under an H-2A guestworker visa by Signet Builders, Inc. Signet is both incorporated and headquartered in Texas but its construction business is nationwide. Mr. Luna Vanegas built structures to house live-stock in three states, including Wisconsin, when working for Signet. Signet classified Mr. Vanegas and others construction workers it hired as exempt from overtime under the FLSA, citing an exemption from overtime for “any employee employed in agriculture.” 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(12). Mr. Luna Vanegas brought suit against Signet in the Western District of Wisconsin as a collective action under the FLSA. Signet moved to dismiss the case citing the agricultural exemption and the Seventh Circuit reversed that dismissal. Luna Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc., 46 F.4th 636 (7th Cir. 2022). 4. Upon remand, Mr. Luna Vanegas moved for conditional certification under the FLSA, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the statutory procedure for employees to collectively bring suit in an FLSA action. The District Court granted Mr. Luna Vanegas’ motion, authorizing provision of notice to other Signet workers that they were eligible to participate in the action and giving them the opportunity to do so. Defendants objected and sought and were granted certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Seventh Circuit, in a 2-1 panel opinion, reversed the District Court’s conditional certification order holding that the FLSA’s collective action procedure does not “mark an exception” to the general rule that “‘a court must establish its jurisdiction over claims one at a time” and rejecting the argument that exercise of jurisdiction is also consistent with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in relevant part that “[s]erving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant [] who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1). See generally Exhibit 1. 5. Judge Rovner dissented from the panel majority’s opinion, and, in a thorough and detailed opinion, explained why the history and purposes of personal jurisdiction and the FLSA demonstrated that “Federal courts need not re-establish personal juri