In Re: Schlumberger Technology Corp. ( 2016 )

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 FILED
May 13, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
In re: SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
1 Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989).
2 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.
2