In Re: Schlumberger Technology Corp., No. 16-20267 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 13, 2016.

Download PDF
Case: 16-20267 Document: 00513513668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2016 REVISED MAY 19, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-20267 In re: SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, FILED May 13, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CV-3002 Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Schlumberger Technology Corporation (“STC”) petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s order granting Plaintiff Ryan Riva’s motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court’s order contains no substantive analysis of its decision to grant conditional certification. Although there is generally no “inflexible rule requiring district courts to file a written order explaining Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-20267 Document: 00513513668 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2016 No. 16-20267 their decisions,” 1 in this case the district court’s “lack of explanation makes it impossible for us to determine” whether mandamus relief would be appropriate here. 2 We therefore remand for the limited purpose to allow the district court to supplement its order. Upon limited remand, the district court should enter a memorandum or order that explains its decision to grant conditional certification. After the district court’s entry of an explanation, the case should be returned to this panel, which will retain jurisdiction during the pendency of the limited remand. 3 STC’s petition is HELD IN ABEYANCE and the case is REMANDED. Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989). See In re Archer Directional Drilling Servs., L.L.C., 630 F. App’x 327, 329 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310-11 (5th Cir. 2008)). 3 See id. 1 2 2