Good news for Chinese Daily News when Ninth Circuit vacates certification under 23(b)(2), remands for further review of 23(b)(3) certification

The long-running saga of Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc. took its latest turn today, when the Ninth Circuit, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, issued the most decision in Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc. (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2013).  The Ninth Circuit reversed various aspects of the District Court's certification order after applying Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) to the District Court's decision.

First, the Court vacated the District Court's Rule 23(a)(2) analysis and directed the District Court to conduct the rigorous analysis required by Wal-Mart:

We vacate the district court’s Rule 23(a)(2) commonality finding and remand for reconsideration in light of Wal-Mart. On remand, the district court must determine whether the claims of the proposed class “depend upon a common contention . . . of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution — which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551. Plaintiffs must show “significant proof that [CDN] operated under a general policy of [violating California labor laws].” Ellis, 657 F.3d at 983 (quoting Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2553 (alteration omitted)). However, plaintiffs need not show that every question in the case, or even a preponderance of questions, is capable of classwide resolution. So long as there is “even a single common question,” a would-be class can satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).

Slip op., at 10.

Next, the Court quickly concluded that the monetary relief sought by the plaintiffs was not "incidental."  The Court reversed the District Court's order certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(2).

Finally, the Court remanded for further consideration as to whether certification was warranted under Rule 23(b)(3):

For two reasons, we remand to the district court for reconsideration of the propriety of class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). First, the district court’s conclusion that common questions predominate in this case rested on the fact, considered largely in isolation, that plaintiffs are challenging CDN’s uniform policy of classifying all reporters and account executives as exempt employees. See Wang, 231 F.R.D. at 612–13. In two recent decisions, we criticized the nature of the district court’s Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry in this case. See In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953, 958–59 (9th Cir. 2009); Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 944–48 & n.14 (9th Cir. 2009). We observed that the district court in this case “essentially create[d] a presumption that class certification is proper when an employer’s internal exemption policies are applied uniformly to the employees.” In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d at 958. We wrote that such a presumption “disregards the existence of other potential individual issues that may make class treatment difficult if not impossible.” Id. The main concern of the predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3) is “the balance between individual and common issues.” Id. at 959. “[A] district court abuses its discretion in relying on an internal uniform exemption policy to the near exclusion of other factors relevant to the predominance inquiry.” Vinole, 571 F.3d at 946.

Slip op., at 13.  The Court also noted that Brinker impacted the analysis of meal period claims and required evaluation by the District Court.

Bradley v. Networkers International LLC reverses denial of class certification after remand following Brinker decision

The Brinker-related news is still flowing today.  While the Supreme Court was busy depublishing decisions that affirmed certification denials purportedly based on Brinker, the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) in Bradley v. Networkers International LLC (December 12, 2012) reversed the trial court's decision to deny class certification as to all but one cause of action (off-the-clock work).  The decision of the Court of Appeal follows an extended detour through the California Supreme Court.  The California Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' petition for review, and ordered the first Bradley decision (unpublished) held pending the high court's decision Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012). The court then remanded the first Bradley opinion to the Court "with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Brinker . . . ."

The Court took its instructions seriously.  The Court received extensive supplemental briefing on Brinker and other decisions from the parties.  The Court concluded that the trial court erred when it refused to certify every claim.

The Court carefully reviewed Brinker's approach for analyzing class claims based on policies applicable to the class:

In finding that common issues predominated on this rest break issue, the high court emphasized that "[c]laims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class treatment," citing with approval three Court of Appeal decisions: Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1286 (Jaimez); Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1524 (Ghazaryan); and Bufil, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th 1193. (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1033.) In each of these decisions, the Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion in denying class certification based on the predominance issue. (Jaimez, supra, at pp. 1299-1307; Ghazaryan, supra, at pp. 1534-1538; Bufil, supra, at pp. 1205-1206.) These courts reasoned that the plaintiffs were challenging a uniform employment policy that allegedly violated California law and thus this violation could be proved (or disproved) through common facts and law. (Jaimez, supra, at pp. 1299-1300; Ghazaryan, supra, at pp. 1536-1538; Bufil, supra, at p. 1206.) The Jaimez and Ghazaryan courts further found that common issues predominated even if the policy did not affect each employee in the same way and damages would need to be proved individually. (See Jaimez, supra, at pp. 1301, 1303-1305; Ghazaryan, supra, at p. 1536.)

Slip op., at 17-18.  (Moment of self-aggrandizement: At this point, I'm feeling pretty good about my work on Ghazaryan.)   The Court continued with a thorough analysis of the clarified standards for meal and rest period claims.  Notably, the Court highlighted the guidance provided by Justice Werdegar on the questions of whether meal period claims are categorically uncertifiable if the defendant raises as an issue the reason for the missed meal period:

Justice Werdegar stated that if an employer's records show no meal period for a given shift, a rebuttable presumption arises that the employee was not relieved of duty and no meal period was provided, shifting the burden to the employer to show the meal period was waived. (Id. at p. 1053.) Justice Werdegar further stated that "[w]hile individual issues arising from an affirmative defense can in some cases support denial of certification, they pose no per se bar [citations]." (Ibid.)

Slip op., at 20.

Later in the opinion, the Court also concluded that the question of independent contractor status is generally one that turns on common issues:

Under both the Borello and Martinez standards, the evidence relevant to the factual question whether the class members were employees or independent contractors is common among all class members. Each of the class members signed a standard "Independent Contractor Agreement" that characterized the worker as an independent contractor; each class member was engaged in a similar occupation (skilled labor in installing or servicing cell sites); each class member was required to work full time and to be available on every working day and during assigned "on call" times; each class member was told how to prioritize each day's jobs; each class member received hourly pay, rather than pay by the job; each class member submitted timesheets to Networkers and Networkers' customers for approval; and each class member was required to use a specific set of tools on the job and to obtain those tools from Networkers. Additionally, although Networkers' standard contract stated that the workers had the right to control the manner and means of the work, including that the workers were permitted to subcontract the work, Networkers had specific time and place job requirements that all workers were required to follow, and the workers could not deviate from these rules or delegate the work.

Slip op., at 23.  The Court continued:

Networkers argued below that there would be a need for individualized proof because of differences among the workers pertaining to job titles, skill levels, pay grades, and the specific type of repair or installation work. However, with respect to the issues "likely to be presented" in the litigation (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1025), these distinctions are not significant. The fact that some workers engaged in repair work and others engaged in installation work, or that workers had different pay grades or worked for different lengths of times on particular days, is not central to the issue whether the workers here were employees or independent contractors under the Borello or Martinez tests. (See Martinez, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 76; Borello, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 350-351.) Under the analysis, the focus is not on the particular task performed by the employee, but the global nature of the relationship between the worker and the hirer, and whether the hirer or the worker had the right to control the work. The undisputed evidence showed Networkers had consistent companywide policies applicable to all employees regarding work scheduling, payments, and work requirements. Whether those policies created an employer-employee relationship, as opposed to an independent contractor relationship, is not before us. The critical fact is that the evidence likely to be relied upon by the parties would be largely uniform throughout the class.

Slip op., at 24-25.  Unequivocal.  Seems like that IC pendulum is swinging back towards a presumption that IC classification is customarily a question suitable for certification.

The Court then returned to the specific claims in the case before it, applying Brinker's standards to the claims and trial court record.  Rather than wade through that discussion, I will offer this observation.  The employer chose to classify installers and repair techs as independent contractors.  When it made that choice, it also chose not to provide meal periods and authorize rest breaks.  It had no policy for them.  Based on Brinker, the Court concluded that this arrangement raised common questions and let the employer live with the consequences of its choice.

And, while the Court distinguished Lamps Plus and Chipotle, it need not have worried about them; they were depublished today.

Court of Appeal declines to extend Lebrilla "crash parts" holding to all non-OEM parts installed under insurance policy

Lebrilla v. Farmers Group, Inc., 119 Cal. App. 4th 1070 (2004) reversed a trial court's denial of certification in a suit against an automobile insurer.  The suit alleged that sheet metal parts known as "crash parts" were used to effectuate accident repairs, but the "crash parts" were not manufactured by original equipment manufacturers.  The use of "crash parts" allegedly resulted in substandard repairs that did not restore damaged vehicles to pre-loss condition.  In Ortega v. Topa Insurance Company (May 24, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) examined a similar, but not identical situation, in which non-OEM parts were used to complete repairs to vehicles.  The trial court concluded that common issues could not predominate when evaluation of a breach of contract claim would require a comparison of each installed non-OEM part to the OEM equivalent to determine whether the repair part was inferior to the OEM part.

The Court of Appeal agreed:

We do not read Lebrilla v. Farmers Group, Inc., supra, 119 Cal.App.4th 1070, to suggest, for example, that all non-OEM replacement parts are uniformly inferior. That case addressed crash parts. (Id. at p. 1073 & fn. 1.) In this case, to recover damages each member of the putative Steered Claimant Class (Class B) must identify the non-OEM part, which includes radiators and heat and cooling systems, among others, and prove the particular manufacturer's part is inferior. Thus, unlike Lebrilla, the court would have to determine whether the installed repair part is inferior. As alleged, common issues do not predominate.

Slip op., at 18.  Pretty straightforward analysis.  When the issue was the adequacy of "crash parts," the question of their adequacy could be resolved on a classwide basis.  Here, the the issue of adequacy could vary wildly, depending upon what part was replaced and what manufacturer supplied the replacement part.  This particular case provides an example of the relatively narrow category of class complaints that reveal predominance issues on the face of the complaint itself.

$15 million misclassification class judgment reversed in Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association

Exemption-based misclassification cases are hard to certify.  But when you certify an overtime exemption misclassification case, try it, and win a $15 million verdict, you'd think that the hard times are behind you.  Not so fast.  In Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association (February 6, 2012), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division One) reversed that verdict, decertified the class, and sent the whole thing back down to the trial court for further consideration of how to resolve the individual break claims in light of Brinker.

The plaintiffs in the case were 260 current and former business banking officers (BBO's) who claimed they were misclassified by USB as outside sales personnel exempt from California‘s overtime laws.  The procedural history was messy.  Exemption defenses were summarily adjudicated.  The defendant moved unsuccessfully to decertify.  The trial included motions about evidentiary exclusions.  It appears from the summary that a substantial amount of evidence the defendant sought to introduce was excluded from the trial.  Significantly, a small survey was conducted and then relied upon by a statistics expert to determine class-wide liability.

The Court issued a number of significant holdings, which all revolve around the propriety of proving liability in a misclassification class action with statistical evidence, as opposed to proving damages once liability is established.  For example, the Court held that use of statistical evidence to prove liability is inconsistent with cases examining such evidence at certification:

USB claims California law precludes class-wide liability determinations based on evidence obtained from a representative sample in employment cases alleging misclassification. USB relies on several state and federal wage and hour class action cases for the proposition that surveying, sampling, and statistics are not valid methods of determining liability because representative findings can never be reasonably extrapolated to absent class members in misclassification claims given that time spent performing exempt tasks may differ between employees. While all the cases cited by USB involve rulings on motions to certify or decertify class actions, they support the conclusion that improper procedures were followed in this case.

Slip op., at 47-48.  The Court also held that statistical sampling for proof of liability is inconsistent with its Bell III decision:

The procedures we approved in Bell III are only superficially similar to the procedures utilized in the present case.  Again, in Bell III we did not have occasion to consider the use of a representative sample to determine class-wide liability, since liability was not an issue on appeal. Accordingly, the only issue we addressed was the damages calculation itself, and not whether the plaintiff employees had a right to recover damages in the first place. And our assessment was based on a record evidencing cooperation and agreement among the parties and their counsel.

Slip op., at 45.  With respect to Bell III, the Court explained that the present case suffered a number of flaws (sample too small, no test studies to set sample size, lack of randomness, and no cooperation between the parties) not found in Bell III.  The Court then said:

Fifth, the restitution award here was affected by a 43.3 percent margin of error, more than 10 percentage points above the margin of error for the double-overtime award we invalidated in Bell III. In absolute terms, the average weekly overtime hour figure could conceivably be as low as 6.72 hours per week, as opposed to the 11.86 hour figure arrived at here. While we again will not set a bright line for when a margin of error becomes so excessive as to be deemed unconstitutional, we are troubled by this result.

Slip op., at 46.

Next, the Court concluded that the exclusion of 78 sworn statements that, if admitted, would have reduced the class size by about one-third, was a prejudicial error that violated the defendant's due process right to present relevant evidence in its defense: "The evidence USB sought to introduce, if deemed persuasive, would have established that at least one-third of the class was properly classified. Thus, this evidence USB sought to introduce is unquestionably relevant and therefore admissible."  Slip op., at 55.

The Court then explained that the fatal flaw in the trial management plan was the exclusion of virtually all means by which the defendant could have defended against class-wide liability:

Fundamentally, the issue here is not just that USB was prevented from defending each individual claim but also that USB was unfairly restricted in presenting its defense to class-wide liability. With that in mind, the cases relied on by plaintiffs are inapposite. Both Long v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (N.D.Ill. 1991) 761 F.Supp. 1320 [protective order limited discovery of information from plaintiff flight attendants to a representative sample of class members], and In re Antibiotic Antitrust Actions (S.D.N.Y. 1971) 333 F.Supp. 278 [states sought recovery for alleged overcharges in the sale of certain antibiotics], concerned the damages phase of a trial, not the liability phase.

Slip op., at 58.  So, when a defendant asserts that this case stands for the proposition that it gets to defend agasint each individual class member's claim, be sure to remind the defendant and Court that the holding actually criticized the absence of any means to mount a defense, rather than specifying the specific forms that a reasonable opportunity to defend must take:

In sum, the court erred when, in the interest of expediency, it constructed a set of ground rules that unfairly prevented USB from defending itself. These ground rules were the product of the trial court. We do not suggest that the implementation of any particular additional procedural tool would have satisfied due process. We simply hold that the court, having agreed to try this matter as a class action, denied USB the opportunity to defend itself by flatly foreclosing the admission of potentially relevant evidence.

Slip op., at 60.

The Court spent some additional time commenting on the margin of error near 44 percent, which it found to be unacceptably large to form the basis of any reasonable result.  The Court concluded its opus by finding that, under the second motion to decertify, the trial court erred by failing to decertify the class.

I think I can sum all this up by observing that (1) misclassification cases in the exemption context are difficult cases and getting tougher all the time, and (2) defendants will incorrectly claim that this decision stands for a mythical due process right that the defendant gets to challenge each class member's claim.  Can't help with one, and can't stop two, but as to two, you can point out that there are many ways to provide a defendant with a reasonable opportunity to defend against class liability.

Breaking News: Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes decided by Supreme Court; Reversed

I'll preface this brief post by noting that I have not had a chance to read the entire opinion, but the opnion in Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (June 20, 2011) was released this morning by the United States Supreme Court.  The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and the District Court, finding that the matter was not suitable for class certification.  The core majority was authored by Justice SCALIA. ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined in that opinion, and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and III.  Justice GINSBURG authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.  BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN joined in Justice GINSBURG'S opinion.

Some key aspects of the holding are:

• Proof of commonality necessarily overlaps with respondents’ merits contention that Wal-Mart engages in a pattern or practice of discrimination. The crux of a Title VII inquiry is “the reason for a particular employment decision,” Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U. S. 867, 876, and respondents wish to sue for millions of employment decisions at once. Without some glue holding together the alleged reasons for those decisions, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims will produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question.
• General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U. S. 147, describes the proper approach to commonality. On the facts of this case, the conceptual gap between an individual’s discrimination claim and “the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury,” id., at 157–158, must be bridged by “[s]ignificant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination,” id., at 159, n. 15. Such proof was absent here.
• Claims for monetary relief may not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2), at least where the monetary relief is not incidental to the requested injunctive or declaratory relief.
• The mere “predominance” of a proper (b)(2) injunctive claim does nothing to justify eliminating Rule 23(b)(3)’s procedural protections, and creates incentives for class representatives to place at risk potentially valid monetary relief claims.

Justice Ginsburg is concerned that the majority imported too much of the "predominance" analysis into the Rule 23(a) requirement that common questions of law or fact must exist:

The Court’s emphasis on differences between class members mimics the Rule 23(b)(3) inquiry into whether common questions “predominate” over individual issues. And by asking whether the individual differences “impede” common adjudication, ante, at 10 (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court duplicates 23(b)(3)’s question whether “a class action is superior” to other modes of adjudication.

Slip op., Ginsburg concurring and dissenting, at 9.  Otherwise, Ginsburg agrees that the class should not have been certified under Rule 23(b)(2) but would  have saved the issue of whether certification was appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) for the District Court on remand.

The opinion looks as though it will prove to have the greatest impact on cases of this type.  While the Rule 23(a) construction seems to be inconsistent with well-settled standards, the balance of the opinion was predictable, given the massive size of the class.

In Mora, et al., v. Big Lots Stores, Court affirms denial of certification in manager misclassification case

I've comment previously that misclassification cases (especially in the retail and restaurant sectors) appear to be an increasingly difficult sell.  See post regarding Arenas v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc., 183 Cal. App. 4th 723 (2010).  Since then, I haven't seen anything to change my opinion that the tide has shifted from the Sav-on high water mark.  Yesterday, in Mora, et al. v. Big Lots Stores (April 18, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) affirmed a trial court order denying certification of a class of Big Lots store managers alleged to have been misclassified as exempt from overtime pay and other labor code obligations.

The Court summarized the two ends of the legal spectrum defining the legal criteria applied to certification:

As the Supreme Court held in Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 326, the central issue in a class certification motion is whether the questions that will arise in the action are common or individual, not the plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. (Accord, Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1524, 1531 ["trial court must evaluate whether the theory of recovery advanced by the plaintiff is likely to prove amenable to class treatment"].) The putative class representatives contend the trial court disregarded this standard, improperly focusing on the potential conflicting issues of fact that may arise on an individual basis rather than the common questions presented by their theory of recovery. To the contrary, the court employed the correct analysis and concluded the theory of recovery advanced—operational standardization imposed by Big Lots—was not supported by substantial evidence and thus not amenable to class treatment. No legal error was committed: "[A] class action will not be permitted if each member is required to 'litigate substantial and numerous factually unique questions' before a recovery may be allowed. . . . '[I]f a class action "will splinter into individual trials," common questions do not predominate and litigation of the action in the class format is inappropriate.'" (Arenas v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 723, 732 [affirming order denying certification on misclassification allegations where trial court found tasks performed by restaurant managers and time devoted to each task varied widely from restaurant to restaurant].)

Slip op., at 12.  The Court noted that the outcome was much like Arenas and Dunbar v. Albertson’s, Inc., 141 Cal. App. 4th 1422 (2006).

The outcome was driven by the standard of review.  The Court emphasized on several occasions that it couldn't second guess the trial court's decision to credit Big Lots' evidence over the plaintiffs' evidence:

In essentially rejecting the putative class representatives' evidentiary submission, the court observed that for more than half of the declarants the percentage of time estimated to have been spent on non-managerial, non-exempt duties was different from the estimates given in deposition testimony or statements to third party prospective employers.

Slip op., at 14, n. 10.  The trial court also credited the very individualized manager declarations submitted by Big Lots over the declarations from the plaintiffs.  The Court of Appeal found that that trial court did not abuse its discretion because substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion.  This is the anti-Sav-on.

District Court (N.D. Cal.) denies motion for class certification in wage & hour suit against Crab Addison, Inc.

United States District Court Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton (Northern District of California) denied plaintiff's motion to certify a class action against the famous defendant, Crab Addison, Inc. (which was responsible for the state appellate decision regarding class member contact information).  Washington v. Joe's Crab Shack, 2010 WL 5396041 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010).  The order suggests that the defendant opposed every aspect of certification, even challenging the adequacy of class counsel, which isn't a major issue in most certification motions:

Crab Addison also asserts that plaintiff's counsel are not adequate, claiming that they “neglected” the case and repeatedly missed critical deadlines. The court finds, however, that plaintiff's counsel are experienced in class actions, including employment-related class actions. The record submitted by Crab Addison does not support a finding that plaintiff's counsel do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4).

Slip op, at 8.  Instead, the Court focused on the predominance requisite, finding that individualized issues predominated.

Mileage reimbursement class certified in part; class definition corrected by Court

United States District Court Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California) certified in part a class action alleging the failure to reimburse work-related mileage expenses.  Wilson v. Kiewit Pacific Co. (N.D. Cal. December 6, 2010).  As an initial matter, the Court refused to certify a class of "all" employees, noting that it was overbroad:

As an initial matter, plaintiff cannot seek to certify a class of “all current and former” California employees of defendant from July 6, 2006 to present. Motion at 3; Reply at 3-4. On its face, that definition is impermissibly overbroad as it includes employees who never incurred unreimbursed business mileage expenses under California law.

Slip op., at 3.  Next, the Court observed that the plaintiff did not submit evidence demonstrating that the Northern California district was operated under the same policies as the Southern California District.  The Court found the plaintiff inadequate to represent the Northern California District employees on the basis of thin evidence of any uniform policy that was actionable.

With respect to the Southern California District, the Court agreed with the defendant that the plaintiff's proposed class definition was problematic, but not for the reason argued:

The Court agrees that there is a problem with the way plaintiff has proposed to define this particular subclass, but not the ascertainability problem defendant asserts. Instead, plaintiff's proposed definition-all Southern California district employees who drove their non-company owned vehicles “over” 25/35 miles-would seem to include only those who received some reimbursement under defendant's policy and not those employees who drove under 25/35 miles but were nonetheless owed reimbursement for non-commute time under plaintiff's theories. The Court doubts plaintiff intended to exclude those employees from the proposed class.

Slip op., at 7.  The Court then revised the class definition, declaring it ascertainable and better defined:

All of defendant's past and present non-union employees working in the Southern California district at any time from July 6, 2005 to present who were not reimbursed for non-commute mileage expenses incurred in using personal vehicles to travel to off-site meetings or trainings.

Slip op., at 7.  This, in particular is very helpful to litigants.  It demonstrates an engaged Court that has provided a concrete example of how to refine and improve a class definition.

The Court found unpersuasive the defendant's argument that some class members had individual deals in place to get company cars.  The Court finished by offering some comments about the obligation to supplement witness lists provided with initial disclosures, finding that those concerns were not at issue due to the rapidly shifting nature of the plaintiff's claims.

Despite pending Brinker case, Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. declares that standard for rest break applies to meal periods

In case you hadn't heard, Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) is pending before the California Supreme Court.  Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc., 181 Cal. App. 4th 1286 (2010), rev. denied (2010) held that certification of meal period claims was appropriate because, among other reasons, that unsettled meal period standard was also a classwide issue.  But in an unexpected twist, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight), in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., decided that, rather than recommending to the trial court that it certify the meal period claim and await Brinker, it would just tell us what that standard is right now.  And, according to the Hernandez Court, the meal period standard is the same standard that applies to rest breaks:

Hernandez admits employers must provide, i.e., authorize and permit, employees to take rest breaks, but contends a different standard applies to meal breaks and thus, the trial court‟s legal analysis was faulty. This contention is not persuasive. “The California Supreme Court has described the interest protected by meal break provisions, stating that „[a]n employee forced to forgo his or her meal period . . . has been deprived of the right to be free of the employer‟s control during the meal period.‟ Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1104 (2007). It is an employer's obligation to ensure that its employees are free from its control for thirty minutes, not to ensure that the employees do any particular thing during that time. Indeed, in characterizing violations of California meal period obligations in Murphy, the California Supreme Court repeatedly described it as an obligation not to force employees to work through breaks. [Citation.]” (Brown v. Federal Express Corp. (C.D.Cal. 2008) 249 F.R.D. 580, 585, fn. omitted.)

Slip op., at 11, emphasis in original.  The Court affirmatively adopts some of the specious arguments from district courts, including the notion that it would be too hard for employees to actually make employees take breaks:

Hernandez's position also is not practical. “Requiring enforcement of meal breaks would place an undue burden on employers whose employees are numerous or who . . . do not appear to remain in contact with the employer during the day. See White v. Starbucks Corp., 497 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1088-89 (N.D.Cal.2007).

Slip op., at 13.  That argument is insulting.  Evidently an employer can control when employees come and go.  That's not too hard.  But they can't decide whether people work during other parts of the day.  Whatever standard is ultimately declared by the California Supreme Court, arguments like this cheapen the discussion.

Elsewhere in the opinion, the Court opines that it is perfectly fine to assess merits during certification.  It's a brave new world here in California.