Geico's attempt to "pick off" class representative in UCL action is unsuccessful

Oh, the riches that come to those who wait.  After a fairly dry spell, California's Courts of Appeal bestow no fewer than three opinions about issues related to class actions and the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").  The first up for commentary is Wallace v. Geico General Insurance Company (April 19, 2010).  In Wallace, the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) considered whether GEICO's offer of monetary compensation to Wallace after she filed her lawsuit caused her to lose standing as the representative plaintiff.  Concluding that she did not, the Court reversed the trial court's order striking class allegations.

Wallace filed a proposed class action complaint against GEICO. According to Wallace, her vehicle was damaged in an accident and required body work. She obtained an estimate from a repair shop of her choice and presented the estimate to GEICO. GEICO told her that it would not pay the full amount of the estimate because the hourly rate for labor charged by that business was above what GEICO considered to be the prevailing labor rate.

Meanwhile, following a consent order issued by the California Department of Insurance, GEICO was obligated to calculate reimbursements in an alternative fashion.  Two months after Wallace filed her lawsuit, GEICO sent a check for $387.56 to Wallace to cover the amount that Wallace paid out of pocket for the repair of her vehicle.  Based on the fact of that payment, the trial court ruled that Wallace lacked standing but gave Wallace time to locate an adequate class representative and allowed discovery for that purpose.  Less than two months later, GEICO moved to strike class allegations.  The trial court granted the motion on the ground that the class had no representative.

The Court of Appeal began its review by examining the "pick off" cases:

In the specific situation where a defendant in a class action has forced an involuntary settlement on the representative plaintiff after the lawsuit is filed, case law creates an exception to the requirement that a representative plaintiff continue to be a member of the proposed class. These cases, which are "sometimes referred to as 'pick off ' cases" (Watkins v. Wachovia Corp. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1590), "arise when, prior to class certification, a defendant in a proposed class action gives the named plaintiff the entirety of the relief claimed by that individual. The defendant then attempts to obtain dismissal of the action, on the basis that the named plaintiff can no longer pursue a class action, as the named plaintiff is no longer a member of the class the plaintiff sought to represent. . . . [T]he defendant seeks to avoid exposure to the class action by 'picking off ' the named plaintiff, sometimes by picking off named plaintiffs serially." (Ibid., citing, among others, La Sala, supra, 5 Cal.3d 864.) In this situation, "the involuntary receipt of relief does not, of itself, prevent the class plaintiff from continuing as a class representative." (Watkins, at p. 1590; see also Larner v. Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1299 [case law "prevents a prospective defendant from avoiding a class action by 'picking off' prospective class-action plaintiffs one by one, settling each individual claim in an attempt to disqualify the named plaintiff as a class representative"]; Ticconi v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 528, 548 [" '[A] prospective defendant is not allowed to avert a class action by "picking off " prospective plaintiffs one-by-one. Thus, precertification payment of the named plaintiff 's claim does not automatically disqualify the named plaintiff as a class action representative.' "].) 

Slip op., at 11-12.  Having explained that the "pick off" attempt was improper, the Court then explained what the trial court should have done in that situation:

Instead of a reflexive dismissal of the representative plaintiff on the basis that he or she lacks standing as the trial court did here — the proper procedure in a pick off situation is for the trial court to consider whether "the named plaintiffs will continue fairly to represent the class" in light of the individual relief offered by the defendant. (La Sala, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 872.) As a practical matter, in most cases, that evaluation may be performed in the context of a ruling on a motion for class certification, where the trial court inquires into the existence of, among other things, "(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class." (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 326, italics added; see also Weiss, supra, 385 F.3d at p. 348 [allowing class certification motion to be filed after defendant attempted to pick off the representative plaintiff].)

Slip op., at 13.  Next, the Court explicitly held that the "pick off" cases apply to UCL actions, even after Proposition 64:

We agree with the parties that the pick off cases are persuasive here, regardless of the injury-in-fact requirement set forth in section 17204. As required by section 17204, Wallace "suffered injury in fact" and "lost money or property" as a result of the practices at issue in this lawsuit. (§ 17204.) Specifically, Wallace was injured by paying for the repair work to her vehicle that GEICO did not agree to cover. Thus, at the time Wallace filed suit she was a proper plaintiff under section 17204. We see no indication in the history of Proposition 64, as reviewed by our Supreme Court in Californians for Disability Rights, supra, 39 Cal.4th 223, 228, that the voters amended section 17204 with the intent of allowing defendants in class actions brought under section 17200 et seq. to defeat class status by forcing an involuntary settlement.

Slip op., at 15-16.  The Court went on to explain that Proposition 64 focused on "the filing of lawsuits by attorneys who did not have clients impacted by the defendant's conduct."  Slip op., at 16.  Thus, "[b]ecause the doctrine expressed in the pick off cases is an established part of class action procedure, there is no reason to believe that Proposition 64 was intended to alter that doctrine in the context of suits brought under section 17200 et seq."  Slip op., at 17, relying on In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 318.

I still can't get over the fact that an insurance company wouldn't pay for the full cost of vehicle repair.  Inconceivable.

Certified class of fedex managers is subsequently decertified

United States District Court Judge Janis Sammartino (Southern District of California) granted FedEx's motion to decertify a class of California-based Dock Service Managers.  Weigele v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2010) 2010 WL 1337031.  Taking In re Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Overtime Pay Litig. (Wells Fargo II), 571 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2009) really seriously, the Court concluded that predominance was lacking.  Perhaps the Court took Wells Fargo II a bit too seriously: "The Court's second reason [for] its finding that common issues do not predominate is that with the substantially decreased importance of Defendant's common classification scheme, the common issues are a relatively minor portion of this litigation."  I don't think that Wells Fargo II said that a common classification scheme should be viewed with substantially decreased importance.  It said that a common classification scheme could not treated as the sole factor used in a certification analysis.  In any event, the Court's changed view was very clear:

[T]he Court is unclear how a jury will be able to sort out the issues placed before it. It appears that they will need to determine whether each testifying witness was or was not exempt and determine to what extent that witness was not provided with mandated overtime, meal, and rest breaks. They will then need to extrapolate from all of the testifying witnesses to the entire class. But it is unclear which the tools they will have to perform that extrapolation. At worst it appears that they would be left to guess. This is too amorphous to expect a reasonable and rational result from any jury.

Order, at 11.

As I said the other day, another misclassification theory, another class that doesn't make the cut.

Flat panel price fixing claims by indirect purchasers certified

United States District Court Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California) certified a class of indirect purchasers harmed by an alleged global price-fixing conspiracy in the market for Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Display (“TFT-LCD”) panels.  In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, 2010 WL 1286478 (N.D. Cal. Mar 28, 2010).

The opinion explains what a TFT-LCD panel is:

TFT-LCD panels are made by sandwiching liquid crystal compound between two pieces of glass called substrates. The resulting screen contains hundreds of thousands of electrically charged dots, called pixels, which form an image. The panel is then combined with a backlight unit, a driver, and other equipment to create a “module” allowing the panel to operate and be integrated into a television, computer monitor, or other product.

Order, at 1.

The Plaintiffs alleged that during the class period, defendants formed a cartel to interfere with the normal cycle of supply and demand for TFT-LCD panels. According to plaintiffs, defendants agreed on prices, agreed to limit production, and agreed to manipulate the supply of TFT-LCD panels and products so that prices remained artificially high.  But the plaintiffs had quite a bit more to go on than mere allegation.  Thus far, in connection with DOJ investigations that are ongoing, seven corporate defendants in the action have also pled guilty to Sherman Act violations relating to suppressing and eliminating competition by fixing the prices of TFT-LCD panels. Those defendants are Sharp Corporation (CR 08-802 SI); LG Display Co. Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. (CR 08-803 SI), Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. (CR 08-804 SI); Hitachi Displays Ltd. (CR 09-247 SI); Epson Imaging Devices Corporation (CR 09-854 SI); and Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation (CR 09-1166 SI).

The defendants also sought to strike modifications to the class definition.  The court denied the request:

Defendants have moved to strike the proposed modifications to the class definitions on the ground that plaintiffs should be required to seek leave of Court and/or the consent of defendants in order to modify the class definition. Defendants rely on this Court's decision in Jordan v. Paul Financial LLC, No. C 09-4496 SI, 2009 WL 192888 (N.D.Cal. Jan.27, 2009), in which the Court denied the plaintiff's request, made at the class certification hearing, to withdraw the pending class certification motion in order to substantively redefine the class and conduct additional discovery. However, Jordan is distinguishable in that there the proposed redefinition of the class was significant, and would have required additional discovery. Here, the proposed modifications are minor, require no additional discovery, and cause no prejudice to defendants. The Court DENIES defendants' motion to strike the modified class definitions.

Order, at 5.

The opinion has some interesting comments about damage proof models at certification and conspiracy allegations.

Class certification denied to El Torito managers in misclassification suit

In other news, early reports now indicate that the Pope is Catholic.  Another day, another order denying certification in a misclassification suit is upheld.  More specifically, in Arenas, et al. v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (ord. pub. April 6, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) affirmed a trial court order denying certification to three subclasses of managerial employees at El Torrito restaurants.  At this point, misclassification suits have the feeling of an arms race where the defendant companies hold a significant technological lead.  Six years after all the excitement occasioned by Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal. 4th 319 (2004), the upshot appears to be that, once a trial court picks a side, a Court of Appeal is unlikely to get involved.

In this particular decision, the Court relied heavily on a mix of California Supreme Court decisions and, somewhat disturbingly, a number of federal decisions.  For example, citing Marlo v. United Parcel Service, 251 F.R.D. 476 (C.D. Cal 2008), the Court said: 

The Marlo court identified the exact problem that this Court faces. Individual declarations submitted by the parties have anecdotal value but cannot be considered representative or common evidence. Specifically, the Marlo court stated the following:[¶] ‘Plaintiffs evidence is essentially individual testimony and an exemption policy. Under the circumstances in this case, where Plaintiff alleges that 1200 [class members] have been misclassified as exempt employees, Plaintiff had to provide common evidence to support extrapolation from individual experiences to a class-wide judgment that is not merely speculative. Plaintiff has not come forward with common proof sufficient to allow a fact-finder to make a class-wide judgment as to the class members. . . . Because Plaintiff lacks common experience, the Court has no confidence that the jury will be able to do anything but speculate as to a class-wide determination.’

Slip op., at 7.  The Court emphasized that it was not permitted to substitute its view of the evidence for the trial court's view:  "As the Supreme Court made clear in Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., this court cannot now substitute its own judgment."  Slip op., at 12.

Plaintiffs appear to have argued that it is unfair to accept a uniform classification by defendant but require individualized proof of misclassification, an argument that has not been well received at the appellate level as of late.  The argument fared no better here: 

Plaintiffs argue defendants cannot on one hand assert they have determined, based on job activities, that all managers are exempt but on the other hand argue a court must examine each individual’s tasks to determine whether that person is exempt. This argument was answered in Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (E.D.Cal. 2008) 253 F.R.D. 586, 603-604, as follows: “Some courts . . . have determined that it is unfair for an employer to ‘on the one hand, argue that all [class members] are exempt from overtime wages and, on the other hand, argue that the Court must inquire into the job duties of each [class member] in order to determine whether that individual is “exempt.”’ [Citation.] But, under Walsh [v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1440, 1461,] there is no estoppel effect given to an employer’s decision to classify a particular class of employees as exempt—whether right or wrong, or even issued in bad faith; instead, the only legally relevant issue to alleged misclassification is whether the exemption in fact applies. 

Slip op., at 13.  Continuing with the extensive quotations from Campbell, the Court of Appeal wrote: 

“It may be intuitively unfair to permit an employer, who has historically classified a particular group of employees as exempt based on a uniform rule, to argue in the context of litigation that the exemption inquiry will require an individualized analysis. But the assumption behind such an intuitively appealing argument is that an employer should somehow be bound by its prior position—which is foreclosed by Walsh. ‘[I]n resolving questions of California law, this court is bound by the pronouncement of the California Supreme Court . . . and the opinions of the California Courts of Appeal are merely data for determining how the highest California court would rule . . . [but] the opinion of the Court of Appeals on questions of California law cannot simply be ignored.’ [Citation.]” 

Slip op., at 14.  After Ramirez in particular, misclassification suits were in no small supply.  But the arms race was equalizing by the time Sav-On was decided, and it looks like the defense bar has pulled ahead in this area.  To make misclassification suits a legitimate mechanism for correcting classification errors on a class-wide basis, plaintiffs will need to find news ways to show trial courts that systemic misclassification errors are really correctable on a class-wide basis.

Wells Fargo's attempt to decertify a consumer class action bounces

You can't blame them for trying.  Unless you are a judge.  Then you can.  In Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2010 WL 1233810 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2010, Judge William Alsup was not impressed with defendant's attempt to decertify a consumer class action involving over 1 million class members.  First, some background is in order.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. improperly assessed overdraft charges on their customers' debit card transactions.  Two separate practices were allegedly employed by defendants: (1) the publication, in the “online banking” section of the Wells Fargo Bank website, of inaccurate available-balance information to their customers, and (2) the re-sequencing of debit card transactions from highest to lowest value-rather than in the order in which purchases were completed-prior to being posted against a customer's account. Plaintiffs alleged that the false balance information was employed to increase the likelihood that customers would incur overdraft charges, while the resequencing was employed to maximize the number of overdraft charges defendants could assess against their customers. Defendants denied these allegations. A few months into the dispute, defendant Wells Fargo & Company was voluntarily dismissed from the action, leaving only Wells Fargo Bank.  Both practices were used to certify classes, but the court later decertified claims resting upon the inaccuare balance theory.

Wells Fargo Bank then moved for summary judgment or decertificaiton of the re-sequencing class.  The court denied the request for decertification:

Counsel have been reminded on various occasions that the presence of individualized issues is not fatal to class actions brought under Rule 23 ( see, e.g., Dkt. No. 245 at 9). Rather, the rule tolerates some individualized issues, so long as “questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” FRCP 23(b)(3). Rule 23 also requires a court to be ever cognizant of whether the class action device “is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.”

The legal claims of the “re-sequencing” class target the alleged overcharging of overdraft fees for over a million different Wells Fargo customers (Dkt. No. 285, Exh. A at 37-38). All members of the “re-sequencing” class were charged overdraft fees due to defendant's accused high-to-low posting of transactions. The fees themselves, however, were only around $34 each. Given this backdrop, it cannot be disputed that a denial of class-certification would close the door of justice to a staggering amount of claimants. The deterrent value of class litigation and the desirability of providing recourse for the injured consumer who would otherwise be financially incapable of bringing suit clearly render the class action a viable and important mechanism in challenging an alleged fraud on the public. This is especially important here, where the allegedly unlawful practice disproportionately gouges those who maintain, due to choice or (more likely) financial hardship, a shallow amount of funds in their checking accounts.

On the other hand, this order must give full consideration to whether plaintiffs' revised damages study is sufficient to establish class-wide proof of actual injury and/or damages for each absent class member. Otherwise, Rule 23 would be used to truncate the required substantive elements of proof by each claimant in violation of the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C.2071-77. Having considered the various limitations inherent in Wells Fargo's transaction data (discussed in detail by this order), and the fact that proving actual injury if suits were brought individually would still require the same types of assumptions made by Olsen in his report, this order finds that plaintiffs have presented sufficient class-wide proof of actual injury to survive defendant's motion for decertification. Given this showing, there is no question that common questions predominate in this action. As such, defendant's motion for class decertification is Denied.

Slip op., at 13 -14.  It is interesting that the weaknesses in defendant's transaction data was used by the court to nullify challenges to the methodology used by plaintiffs' expert to assess damages for the class.  The court found that the same flaws in data would impact an individual's attempt to prove damages.  The opinion contains a detailed discussion, with an example, of the allged practices and the damage extrapolation methodology used by plaintiffs' expert.

Northern District Court certifies class in misclassification suit against Deloitte & Touche LLP

United States District Court Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California) certified a class of salaried employees alleging that they were misclassified as exempt by Deloitte & Touche LLP.  Brady v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 2010 WL 1200045 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2010).  The class consists of salaried employees in the audit line of service but who were not licensed accountants.  The Court identified common issues of law and fact as follows:

Common questions of law include whether the professional exemption under California law requires a license for accountants, whether accounting is a “learned profession” under California Wage Order 4-2001, and whether the duties of proposed class members would qualify for administrative exception under California law. Common factual questions include whether defendant's standardized policies and procedures prevented the class members from customarily and regularly exercising discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance, whether defendant categorically classified all class members as exempt, whether defendant required class members to work overtime, along with a host of other questions relating to overtime, meal breaks, timekeeping and pay.

Slip op., at 4.  Generally, the Court maintained a sharp delineation between certification questions and merits issues.

In Alberghetti v. Corbis Corp., District Court denies certification, but not for the usual reasons

In Alberghetti v. Corbis Corp., 263 F.R.D. 571 (C.D. Cal Jan. 13, 2010), Judge Stephen V. Wilson denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  A denial of class certification is not an unusual event.  But, in this case, certification was denied even though the Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the "commonality," "typicality," and "numerosity" requisites of Rule 23.

In Alberghetti, artists and entertainers filed suit against a photo-licensing company, alleging that it misappropriated plaintiffs' statutory and common law rights of publicity by using plaintiffs' names, images, and likenesses without plaintiffs' consent.  Citing Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir.1996), the Court first concluded that a majority of the class members could not be identified and would have no knowledge that their likenesses had been misappropriated or that their rights would be determined by the action.  The Court concluded that the plaintiffs had not adequately addressed that due process concern.

Second, the Court found fatal conflicts between the plaintiffs themselves and between plaintiffs and their counsel.  "Plaintiffs disagree as to whether injunctive relief is appropriate: one named Plaintiff wants to enjoin all of Defendant's uses of her image; the other named Plaintiff seems to recognize that media-related uses may be beneficial."  Alberghetti, at 577.  The Court also noted a very unusual rift between the plalintiffs and their attorneys: "In the present case, the individual Plaintiffs and their lawyer are all in conflict over whether to seek injunctive relief and how to define the scope of injunctive relief."  Id., at 578.  The plaintiffs and their counsel even disagreed as to who should be included in the class.

Not the usual reasons one sees for a denial of class certification.  It is an interesting opinion for that reason alone.

in brief: Post-Tobacco II remand case, Pfizer v. Superior Court, is now published

The shockwaves of Tobacco II continue.  Today, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) published its Opinion in Pfizer v. Superior Court (March 2, 2010) after the matter was remanded by the California Supreme Court following the Tobacco II decision.  The Court focused heavily on the length of time and extent of the advertising campaign for Listerine that was at issue in the case.  Less than half a year and sporadic distribution wasn't enough to convince the Court to apply Tobacco II.  So now we have Morgan, et al. v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (September 23, 2009), that found an advertising campaign of around a year to be long enough for a reliance inference, but just under half a year is insufficient.  I suppose those 8-month ad campaigns will be judged on a fact-intensive analysis that looks at whether the ads were continuous and pervasive or sporadic and poorly circulated.

McAdams v. Monier, Inc. opinion after remand is published; most of original opinion remains intact

In a prior published opinion, McAdams v. Monier, Inc. (May 30, 2007, C051841), as mod. June 25, 2007, reversed a trial court order denying certification of the proposed CLRA and UCL classes.  The gravamen of the complaint was an alleged failure to disclose that the color composition of defendant's roof tiles would erode away, leaving bare concrete, well before the end of the tiles‟ represented 50-year lifetime.  Then, the Supreme Court granted review and deferred the matter (grant and hold) in light of In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 (Tobacco II), pending on the Supreme Court's docket at the time.  After Tobacco II was decided, the Supreme Court remanded with directions to vacate the decision and reconsider in light of Tobacco II.

Today, the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) issued its amended Opinion on Remand in McAdams v. Monier, Inc. (February 24, 2010).  But indicating that much of its Opinion would remain unchanged, the Court said, "In doing so, we reiterate our position involving the CLRA, as Tobacco II concerned only the UCL."  Slip op., at 2.  Going on, the Court summarized the new Opinion as follows:

We agree with case law that an “inference of common reliance” may be applied to a CLRA class that alleges a material misrepresentation consisting of a failure to disclose a particular fact. (Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1293 (Massachusetts Mutual).)

As for the UCL, we remand for the trial court to determine if the representative plaintiff meets the Proposition 64 standing requirements, as interpreted in Tobacco II. Otherwise, we find the UCL action suitable for class certification.

Consequently, we reverse the trial court's order denying certification of the proposed CLRA and UCL classes. We do so, however, with one proviso as to defining these classes, which we will explain in this opinion: The members of these classes, prior to purchasing or obtaining their Monier roof tile product, had to have been exposed to a statement along the lines that the roof tile would last 50 years, or would have a permanent color, or would be maintenance-free. (See Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 324.)

Slip op., at 2-3.

The opinion is extensive in its analysis of both the CLRA and the UCL.  The CLRA discussion is interesting for many reasons, including approving citation of the standing analysis in Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co. (N.D.Cal. 2005) 369 F.Supp.2d 1138 (slip op., at 17) and clarification (and, to a degree, limitation) of the extent of the misrepresentation/omission discussion in Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 30 (slip op., at 13-16).

The UCL discussion is also interesting on many levels.  For instance, the Court provides a simple reminder about what happened in Tobacco II: "In Tobacco II, the high court reversed an order that had denied class certification in a UCL lawsuit."  Slip op., at 21.  In other words, it reversed every element of the trial court order and Court of Appeal Opinion necessary to support that order.  Ultimately, the Court applied much of its certification analysis discusses in its CLRA discussion to the UCL claim, concluding that certification was appropriate.  The Court then directed the trial court "to determine whether the representative plaintiff can establish UCL standing as defined in Tobacco II and, if not, whether amendment should be permitted to add a new class representative."  Slip op., at 28.

Update on 2010-02-24 21:55 by The Complex Litigator

Check The UCL Practitioner for more on Monier.  Ms. Kralowec has reported extensively on this case and has promised to post detailed comments soon.

More thoughts on Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc.

There is quite a bit to absorb in  Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc., et al. (February 8, 2010), and I wanted to provide some further commentary.  For example, no California Court of Appeal has interpreted or provided any guidance to trial courts regarding the wage statement "injury" requirement.  Jaimez holds that: (1) "a very modest showing" will satisfy the injury requirement; (2) the filing of a lawsuit and "the difficulty and expense ... encountered in attempting to reconstruct time and pay records" may satisfy the wage statement injury requirement; (3) the "injury" requirement is distinct from "damages"; and, (4) trial courts may certify wage statement classes even without evidence of an injury arising from inaccurate wage statements. Opinion at 22-23.

Jaimez also re-affirms and clarifies key standards applicable to class certification motions, including the fact that the proper predominance analysis is comparative. Jaimez appears to be the first published California Court of Appeal decision since the issuance of Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal. 4th 319 (2004) to hold that the "relevant comparison lies between the costs and benefits of adjudicating plaintiffs' claims in a class action and the costs and benefits of proceeding by numerous separate actions- not between the complexity of a class suit that must accommodate some individualized inquiries and the absence of any remedial proceeding whatsoever." Opinion at 13 (quoting Sav-On, 34 Cal. 4th at 339  n.10). This holding is a good reminder of the "relevant comparison" predominance analysis when examining whether to certify a class.

Jaimez clarifies the role of the trial court when considering issues surrounding certification of meal break classes, holding that trial courts may certify a meal break class regardless of any legal uncertainty regarding an employer's obligation to provide meal breaks. Opinion at 18-19.

Jaimez also establishes important precedent regarding meal break timing requirements.  Employers and employees continue to dispute when employees are entitled to meal breaks.  No California Court of Appeal has offered guidance on this frequently disputed issue. Jaimez holds that trial courts may certify meal break classes based on the theory that an employer failed to provide meal breaks within the first five hours of a shift.

Labor Code § 226 directs employers to provide their employees with "an accurate itemized statement in writing" showing "total hours worked" and "all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate."  When a violation occurs, "[a]n employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with [section 226(a)] is entitled to" specified damages. Id.  While this statutory language appears to differentiate between injury and damage, employees in California continue to face substantial resistance to the type of analysis supplied by Jaimez.

No California Court of Appeal has directly construed the wage statement "injury" requirement. Rather, only federal authorities have discussed this issue.  California employers, employees and courts continue to dispute the meaning of the wage statement injury requirement.  Jaimez now provides the first comments from a California Court of Appeal interpreting the wage statement injury requirement, assisting trial courts and litigants in the process.  On this point, Jaimez holds: "While there must be some injury in order to recover damages, a very modest showing will suffice." Opinion at 22.  Going further, Jaimez explains that '''this lawsuit, and the difficulty and expense [Jaimez has] encountered in attempting to reconstruct time and pay records,' may well be 'further evidence of the injury' he has suffered." Opinion at 22.  Adopting the federal approach to identifying injury, Jaimez explains that injury can include "the possibility of not being paid overtime, employee confusion over whether they received all wages owed them, difficulty and expense involved in reconstructing pay records, and forcing employees to make mathematical computations to analyze whether the wages paid in fact compensated them for all hours worked."  Opinion at 22.  This clearly articulated standard was missing from California jurisprudence.

Finally, with respect just to the wage statement aspects of the opinion, Jaimez holds that the absence of evidence at the certification stage of an injury arising from inaccurate wage statements does not preclude class certification because the plaintiff's theory (an erroneous wage statement form) is suitable for class treatment. Opinion at 22-23.

Despite many decisions regarding aspects of class certification, the actual application of certification standards to the facts of a particular case remains an area of substantial confusion for litigants and many trial courts.  Jaimez, citing Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd., 169 Cal.App.4th 1524 (2008), tacitly recognized this ongoing area of difficulty for trial courts when it said, "The trial court misapplied the criteria, focusing on the potential conflicting issues of fact or law on an individual basis, rather than evaluating 'whether the theory of recovery advanced by the plaintiff is likely to prove amenable to class treatment.'"  Opinion, at 13.

Following this general observation about the application of incorrect criteria to the certification question, the Jaimez Opinion follows with one of the more thorough discussions of how to apply correct certification criteria to the specific facts of a case, on a claim-by-claim basis, spanning some 10 pages of the Opinion.  For example, the Opinion provides concrete examples regarding the correct method for evaluating evidence submitted in support or opposition to the motion for class certification:

[H]ad the trial court focused on the correct criteria, it would have necessarily found the First Choice declarations, while identifying individual effects of policies and practices that may well call for individual damages determinations, nevertheless confirm the predominance of common legal and factual issues that make this case more amenable to class treatment.  For example:

• Eight of the First Choice Declarations admit that RSR’s regularly “forego” meal breaks and one states that he never takes a meal break; and
• The First Choice declarations also fail to state that the RSR’s were compensated with an additional hour of pay, as required by California law, when the RSR’s failed to follow their “normal” practice and/or did not receive a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period.

The First Choice declarations actually demonstrate there are numerous predominant common factual issues.  The fact that individual RSR’s may have different damages does not require denial of the class certification motion.  Furthermore, declarations from a small percentage of objectors do not bar class certification.  In sum, the trial court applied improper criteria in evaluating the merits of the First Choice declarants’ statements rather than considering whether they rebutted plaintiff’s substantial evidence that predominant factual issues (if not legal, too) make this case more amenable to class treatment than to myriad individual adjudications (Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 715, 743 (Bell); Richmond, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 475.)

Opinion at 15-16.  Opinions with this degree of practical detail about the correct method for evaluating evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to class certification are uncommon.  The rarity of such discussions about the practical mechanics of certification makes this Opinion that much more valuable for practitioners and trial courts alike.  Clarity of legal standards tends to reduce the duration and cost of litigation.

Just as important as the practical demonstration of how to assess evidence supplied by the parties on a contested certification motion is the Opinion's restatement of the correct legal test for evaluating predominance.  Since Sav-On, trial courts have continued to deny certification on the erroneous ground that a complex class action would, by necessity, require management of some individualized inquiries.  Jaimez provides a needed reminder that “'[T]he established legal standard for commonality . . . is comparative.'”  Opinion at 13, citing Sav-On.  Jaimez continues, "Specifically, '[t]he relevant comparison lies between the costs and benefits of adjudicating plaintiffs’ claims in a class action and the costs and benefits of proceeding by numerous separate actions—not between the complexity of a class suit that must accommodate some individualized inquiries and the absence of any remedial proceeding whatsoever.  [Citations.]'"  Ibid.  Though simple to state, this principle has received inconsistent application in practice.  Where a legal standard is applied inconsistently, repeated affirmations of the principle will help guide trial courts towards greater homogeneity of their analyses.   

The Supreme Court is currently considering appeals of the decisions in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court [previously reported at 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2008)] and Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc. [previously reported at 167 Cal. App. 4th 1278 (2008)], both of which address, among other things, issues surrounding meal period requirements.  Jaimez bluntly observes that the law in this area is unsettled.  Despite this uncertainty, since Petitions for Review were granted in Brinker and Brinkley, trial courts throughout the state have routinely declined to decide matters based on existing law, proposing to stay wage & hour class actions while awaiting Supreme Court decisions that may not be issued until late 2010 or later.

Prior to publication, no California case addressed the issue of how to apply the standards for class certification to meal and rest break claims while the Brinker and Brinkley cases are pending before the California Supreme Court.  Moreover, the conflict between the court of appeal's decision in Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal. App. 4th 944 (2005) and a number of federal district court decisions also remains unresolved.  The Court, in Jaimez, found a way to avoid paralysis while awaiting Supreme Court decisions in Brinker and Brinkley. Jaimez held that a court "need not try to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court's review [of, in this case, Brinker and Brinkley], as we are not, at this stage, charged with adjudicating the legal or factual merits of Jaimez's causes of action."  Opinion at 19.

Jaimez makes it clear that trial courts need not stay class actions pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's proceedings in Brinker and Brinkley simply because they involve meal and rest break claims. California trial courts that are frequently being asked to deny or delay class certification of meal and rest break claims will find the Court's demonstrative application of class certification principles to meal and rest break claims helpful.

There is also a strong argument that, under California law, employees must have a 30-minute, uninterrupted meal break within the first five hours of a shift.  Labor Code § 512 say, "An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes .... "  Wage orders provide: "No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes .... "  And the California Supreme Court said, "Pursuant to IWC wage orders, employees are entitled to an unpaid 30-minute, duty-free meal period after working for five hours .... "  Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal. 4th 1094, 1104 (2007).

Despite these and other suggestive authority, trial courts continue to encounter employers and employees that dispute when employees are entitled to meal breaks. No California Court of Appeal has offered explicit guidance on this issue before this opinion. Jaimez found that trial courts may certify meal break classes based on the theory that an employer failed to provide meal breaks within the first five hours of a shift. See Opinion at 19 (observing that individual issues do not predominate because the First Choice's declarations "fail to establish that any of the meal breaks were: (1) uninterrupted, (2) for 30 continuous minutes, or (3) provided within the first five, hours of a shift").

There is a lot to chew on in Jaimez (much of it not all that palatable to employers).  I can't imagine that, with an opinion this comprehensive, we've heard the last about Jaimez.  There is more to read about in Jaimez (like what to do when the plaintiff is inadequate), but I am done writing about it.