Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assocs., Inc., 185 Cal. App. 4th 1363 (2010)

Plaintiffs sought to represent and certify a class of 4,000 current and former employees of Boyd & Associates, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California. Plaintiffs alleged that Boyd denied the putative class members off-duty meal periods and rest breaks and that it had failed to include certain reimbursements and an annual bonus payment in calculating the employees’ hourly rate of overtime pay.

The trial court denied certification as to all three subclasses, and the Court of Appeal affirmed as to the claims for meal and rest periods on the ground that the evidence submitted by Boyd showed the ability of each of its security guards to take breaks depended on individual issues. However, the Court reversed the denial of class certification as to the overtime subclass, reasoning that the trial court abused its discretion to the extent it decided common issues did not predominate. See also Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 2010 WL 2306419 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (parties to class action settlement provided trial court with information necessary to determine settlement was reasonable and fair and to overrule objection); Solis v. Jasmine Hall Care Homes, Inc., 2010 WL 2612692 (9th Cir. 2010) (employer’s appeal from partial summary judgment is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the final decision rule in case involving alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act).