FOR PUBLICATION

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
         FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LORENZO DOMINGUEZ,                                No. 22-55731
individually, on behalf of others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the            D.C. No.
general public,                                  8:20-cv-01784-
                                                    JLS-KES
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
                                                    OPINION
BETTER MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,

                 Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the United States District Court
             for the Central District of California
         Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

              Argued and Submitted June 6, 2023
                    Pasadena, California

                    Filed December 7, 2023

    Before: Milan D. Smith, Jr., David F. Hamilton, * and
             Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges.

*
 The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
2              DOMINGUEZ V. BETTER MORTGAGE CORP.


               Opinion by Judge David F. Hamilton;
     Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Collins


                          SUMMARY **


                           Labor Law

    The panel (1) affirmed the district court’s order imposing
a communication restriction on the defendant employer in a
putative collective and class wage-and-hour action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and state law; and (2) dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction the employer’s appeal from the
district court’s order nullifying agreements between the
employer and current and former employees.
    The lead plaintiff objected after his former employer
responded to his lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime wages by
trying to persuade employees to agree not to join any
collective or class action and to encourage employees to
settle their claims individually. The district court found that
the employer’s communications were misleading and
coercive. The district court therefore nullified the new
employment agreements and release agreements, and it
ordered the employer to communicate with current and
former employees about wage-and-hour issues only in
writing and with prior approval.
   The panel held that the employer’s appeal was timely,
even though the district court’s order imposing the


**
  This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
            DOMINGUEZ V. BETTER MORTGAGE CORP.               3


communication restriction was entered on May 17, 2022,
more than 30 days before the filing of the notice of appeal,
because the employer filed in substance a motion to
reconsider the restriction, thus tolling the time to file the
notice of appeal. The employer timely filed its notice of
appeal within 30 days of the district court’s order refusing to
modify the May 17 order.
    The panel held that, in this interlocutory appeal, it had
jurisdiction under 

(a)(1) to review the
communication restriction because the restriction, which
imposed a prior restraint, was injunctive in
nature. Affirming in part, the panel held that the restriction
was both justified and tailored to the situation created by the
employer’s misleading and coercive communications, and
the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the restriction.
    Dismissing in part, the panel held that it lacked
jurisdiction to review the district court’s order nullifying
new employment agreements and release agreements signed
in response to the employer’s communications that the
district court found to have been misleading and
coercive. The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to
consider the merits of the nullification order because the
issue was raised in an interlocutory appeal and did fit any
exception, such as pendent appel