class action

Subscribe to class action via RSS

Over the past two weeks, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored the importance of having common questions that are susceptible to common answers in cases where plaintiffs are seeking class certification. Most recently, the Court clarified that this requirement, which has now been considered in both antitrust and employment cases, applies with respect to both merits and damages issues. As discussed below, this clarification presents employers with a potent new tool in the defense of class action wage-and-hour cases.

On March 27, 2013, the Court issued its decision in Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, a putative antitrust class action brought on behalf of 2 million cable subscribers in 649 franchise areas alleging overcharging through an alleged attempted monopoly. In considering whether the class should be certified, the Court held that the need for individualized inquiries with respect to damages issues precluded class certification. (Opinion available here.) Moreover, the Court stressed that lower courts must perform a probing analysis when deciding whether to certify a class in order to ensure the existence of common answers to common questions.

Wang v. Chinese Daily News, 2013 WL 781715 (9th Cir. 2013)

Plaintiffs (reporters for the Chinese Daily News) alleged they were non-exempt employees entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the reporters, finding journalists are not subject to the creative professional exemption to the FLSA or California…

Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, 2013 WL 139200 (Cal. App. Jan. 11, 2013)

Israel Flores and Andrea Naasz sued West Covina Toyota (WCT) and Toyota Motor Sales for selling them a “lemon,” alleging both individual and class action claims, including claims for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).  WCT filed a motion to compel arbitration and enforce the class action waiver contained…

See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2012 WL 5305729 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)

Pamela Silva sued her former employer, See’s Candy, for various wage-and-hour violations. After certifying a class of current and former California employees, the trial court granted Silva’s motion for summary adjudication on four of See’s Candy’s affirmative defenses. In a writ petition to the Court of Appeal, See’s Candy challenged…

Pamela Silva brought a wage-and-hour class action against her former employer, See’s Candy Shops, Inc., alleging, in part, that See’s failed to pay her wages for all hours worked because the See’s timekeeping system rounded employee time entries to the nearest tenth of an hour/nearest six minutes.  In response to the complaint, See’s alleged that its use of rounding was consistent with state and federal …

Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2012 WL 3538753 (9th Cir. 2012)

Susan J. Peabody was employed as a commissioned salesperson by Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) for approximately 10 months. Peabody’s commissions were based on the revenue generated by advertising that was aired every broadcast month, which lasted four or five weeks. Peabody also received a base salary of $20,000 per year. During her…

Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012)

In this long-awaited opinion, the California Supreme Court determined several important issues of law regarding meal and rest breaks. First and foremost, the Supreme Court determined that “an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he…

Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 667 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 2012)

Fernando Ruiz and similarly situated drivers filed a class action against Affinity alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages, improper charges for workers’ compensation insurance and unfair business practices. To work for Affinity, the drivers had to enter into an…

Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 203 Cal. App. 4th 212 (2012)

U.S. Bank (“USB”) appealed a $15 million judgment that was entered against it following a bifurcated bench trial. The plaintiffs are 260 current and former business banking officers who claimed they were misclassified by USB as outside sales personnel exempt from overtime pay. The Court of Appeal agreed with USB that the…

Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Mgmt., Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 1112 (2012)

Leander Thurman sued Bayshore for alleged violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) and the Unfair Competition Law and, following a bench trial, a judgment was entered imposing civil penalties, including unpaid wages, against Bayshore in the total amount of $358,588 and awarding Thurman restitution in the amount of…