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 28 U.S.C. § 1292(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 appellate jurisdiction, that would allow for review. J