CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
IN RE: AMAZON.COM, INC., FULFILLMENT CENTER FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION.
___________________________________________

TINA VANCE and AARON VANCE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM.KYDC, INC.; AMAZON.COM.KYDC, LLC; ZAPPOS.COM, INC.; ZAPPOS FULFILLMENT CENTERS, INC.; KELLY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-5533
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
Nos. 3:13-cv-00765; 3:14-md-02504—David J. Hale, District Judge.
Argued: December 7, 2016
Decided and Filed: March 31, 2017
Before: SILER, BATCHELDER, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (2014), the Supreme Court held that post-shift security screening is a noncompensable postliminary activity under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 251 et seq. See id. at 518–19. At issue here is whether Integrity Staffing resolves a similar claim under the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act (KWHA), Ky. Rev. Stat. § 337.285. Because we conclude the Kentucky Supreme Court would apply Integrity Staffing to the state’s wage and hour law, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ KWHA claims.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LINDELL LUCK,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 15-5746
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:13-cr-20303—Samuel H. Mays, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: March 9, 2017
Decided and Filed: March 31, 2017
Before: CLAY, SUTTON, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Charged with possession and distribution of child pornography, defendant Lindell Luck sought, unsuccessfully, to force the government to stipulate to the childpornographic nature of the material recovered from his laptops. On appeal, he contends that the district court’s refusal to force the stipulation violated the Supreme Court’s decision in Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), which enforced a similar stipulation for felon status in felon-in-possession cases. We disagree. Overlooked in defendant’s presentation is an important caveat from Old Chief. “[O]ur holding,” Old Chief said, “is limited to cases involving proof of felon status,” id. at 183 n.7—an explicit limitation that this court has relied on in rejecting previous attempts to expand Old Chief. We do so again, and hold that, in light of the explicit limitation on Old Chief’s holding, as well as the material distinctions between felon status and the nature of the images in child pornography cases, the district court did not err in refusing to force the government to stipulate. Finding no reversible error in defendant’s remaining claims on appeal, we affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
AELEN UNAN and PATRICIA QUINTINO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NICK LYON, in his official capacity as Director, Michigan Department of Community Health and Human Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-1185
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:14-cv-13470—Marianne O. Battani, District Judge
Argued: November 29, 2016
Decided and Filed: March 31, 2017
Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In the course of implementing certain changes required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“ACA”), the State of Michigan experienced a systemic computer problem that erroneously assigned thousands of non-citizens, who may have been eligible for comprehensive Medicaid coverage, to Emergency Services Only (“ESO”) Medicaid. Plaintiffs Aelen Unan and Patricia Quintino, two eligible noncitizen residents of Michigan who were erroneously assigned ESO coverage, filed a class action complaint against Nick Lyon, Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”), alleging violations of the Medicaid statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found that actions taken by the State since the complaint was filed had resolved all systemic errors. Finding plaintiffs’ claims to be moot, the district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiffs’ motion for the same, and dismissed as moot plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction and class certification. Plaintiffs now appeal the district court’s judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the plaintiffs’ claims are not moot, and REVERSE the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On the basis of grounds other than those relied upon by the district court, we AFFIRM the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to their claims that defendant failed to provide comprehensive Medicaid coverage and a reasonable opportunity to verify immigration status, and hold that there are fact issues precluding summary judgment for both plaintiffs and defendant. We hold that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the remaining notice claims, and we REMAND the case for further proceedings.