UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 17, 2023

Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________

RANDY DEAN QUINT; JOHN LINN; MARK MOLINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. No. 22-1226

VAIL RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-03569-DDD-GPG) _________________________________

Submitted on the briefs: *

Edward P. Dietrich, Edward P. Dietrich, APC, Beverly Hills, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Michael H. Bell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., ** Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. ** Steven R. Reid withdrew from the case and is no longer at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. However, he is listed as counsel of record on the appellee’s response brief. Appellate Case: 22-1226 Document: 010110974614 Date Filed: 12/27/2023 Page: 2

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge. _________________________________

Randy Dean Quint, John Linn, and Mark Molina (“Colorado Plaintiffs”) filed a

class and collective action against Vail Resorts, Inc., in the District of Colorado

alleging violations of federal and state labor laws (“Colorado Action”). Different

plaintiffs filed similar lawsuits against a Vail subsidiary, which are pending in

federal and state courts in California. After Vail gave notice that it had agreed to a

nationwide settlement with some of the other plaintiffs, Colorado Plaintiffs filed an

emergency motion asking the district court to enjoin Vail from consummating the

settlement. The district court denied their motion, and Colorado Plaintiffs filed this

interlocutory appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we

affirm.

I. Background

The Colorado Action alleges that certain of Vail’s nationwide employment

practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law. Colorado Plaintiffs seek

payment of unpaid wages, overtime, and other benefits for themselves and similarly

situated parties. Five other actions filed by different plaintiffs in California asserted

similar claims against Vail subsidiaries.

Vail notified Colorado Plaintiffs and the district court that it had negotiated a

nationwide settlement with other plaintiffs encompassing all claims for alleged

2 Appellate Case: 22-1226 Document: 010110974614 Date Filed: 12/27/2023 Page: 3

unpaid wages and any other violation of state or federal law involving Vail and its

subsidiaries (“Settlement”). Vail initially indicated the Settlement would be

submitted for approval in the district court in the Eastern District of California, but

the settling parties later stipulated to stay the California federal-court actions and

seek approval of the Settlement in a California state-court action. Colorado Plaintiffs

filed an emergency motion seeking an injunctio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document