The California Rules of Court require revision or clarification regarding Motions for Preliminary/Final Approval of class action settlements

The California Rules of Court are just bursting with procedural rules designed to operate in conjunction with the Code of Civil Procedure.  However, while much effort clearly went into ensuring that the Rules work with each other in a smooth fashion, every now and then the Rules conflict with each other.  One area where I find this to be so arises in the context of motion page length when filing motions for preliminary (or final) approval of class action settlements. 

As most civil litigation practitioners in California would know off of the of their head, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d) specifies that motions other than summary judgment or summary adjudication motions can be no longer than 15 pages, with 20 pages permitted for the summary adjudication and judgment motions.  There are no other listed exceptions in that rule. But California Rules of Court, rule 3.764(c) specifies that any motion seeking certification (or decertification) of a class action can be up to 20 pages in length.  Rule 7.764 then says that the remaining provisions of rule 3.1113 apply, apparently meaning that the page limit is intended as an exception to 3.1113.  The confusion arises in what is expected by Court ruling on motions for preliminary (or final) approval of class action settlements.  Those motions are required to discuss the key settlement terms, the settlement process, why the settlement if fair and adequate, and (and here's the rub), why certification of a settlement class is appropriate.  Now, that certification discussion is certainly more streamlined than on contested motion, but Courts still expect at least some discussion of certification requisites.  So, which page limit applies?  Is it 15 pages, or 20 pages, given that motions for preliminary (or final) approval of class action settlements discuss certification of a settlement class?

Court of Appeal examines "economic injury" and "causation" under the UCL in Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC

Very briefly, I direct your attention to Veera v. Banana Repulic, LLC (December 15, 2016), decided by the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four).  In Veera, the Court examined the evidence necessary to create a triable issue of fact as to whether an advertisement of a sale resulted in an actionable economic injury caused by an unfair business practice.

The plaintiffs alleged that signs in Banana Republic store windows advertising a 40 percent off sale were false or misleading because they did not state that the discount applied only to certain items. The plaintiffs introduced evidence indicating that, in reliance on the allegedly false advertising, they were induced to shop at certain Banana Republic stores and selected various items for purchase at the advertised discount. However, as the items were being rung up at the cash register, they were told for the first time that the advertised discount did not apply to their chosen merchandise. The plaintiffs claimed that, after waiting in line to purchase the selected items, and due to frustration and embarrassment, they just bought some of the items they chose even though the discount did not apply.  Applying Kwikset, the Court of Appeal concluded that this evidence was sufficient to create a triable issue and defeat summary judgment.

One Justice dissented in the result. The dissent raises the interesting question of whether lost opportunity costs and time are sufficient to create injury under the UCL and/or the FAL.

Appellants were represented by Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald, William M. Turner, Asha Dhillon; Grignon Law Firm, Anne M. Grignon and Margaret M. Grignon.

Lubin v. The Wackenhut Corporation tackles Wal-mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Brinker, and decertification

This opinion is like Christmas and Hanukkah, sitting in an Easter Basket filled with Valentine's Day treats.  And I overlooked it for two weeks!  In Lubin v. The Wackenhut Corporation, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) gets deep into the wage and hour weeds in 50-page opinion that is overflowing with interesting bits.  Here's the summary of how the matter ended up before the Court of Appeal:

Appellants Nivida Lubin, Sylvia M. Maresca, and Kevin Denton (together plaintiffs) filed this action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons, alleging defendant and respondent The Wackenhut Corporation (Wackenhut) violated California labor laws by failing to provide employees with off-duty meal and rest breaks and by providing inadequate wage statements. The trial court initially granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. However, as the case approached trial, the United States Supreme Court reversed a grant of class certification in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) 564 U.S. 338 (Wal-Mart). Relying on Wal-Mart, Wackenhut moved for decertification. The trial court granted the motion. 

Slip op., at 2.

I don't have time to try and summarize this monster opinion at the moment, but it is a must read.  The Court spends a lot of time explaining why Wal-Mart is not applicable to wage and hour certification questions, notes that the Supreme Court, which decided Wal-Mart, held this year in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 136 S.Ct. 1036, 1048 (2016) that statistical evidence is appropriately used in class actions, spends a substantial amount of time applying Brinker and the cases that followed to explain that variations in rates of missed meal and rest breaks, when certified based on an unlawful policy or procedure, is a damages issue, not a predominance question, and lots, lots, more!

Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Emily P. Rich, Theodore Franklin, Manuel A. Boigues; Posner & Rosen, Howard Z. Rosen, Jason C. Marsili, Brianna M. Primozic; James R. Hawkings, James R. Hawkings, and Gregory E. Mauro, represented the successful Plaintiffs and Appellants on appeal.

Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP update

For those of you who recognized that the Ninth Circuit got it 100% right when it found in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016) that an arbitration agreement that precludes collective actions violates rights protected by the NLRA, you may wish to know where things stand with that case on further appeal.  Right now, Morris is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari.  Here is the Docket report:

• Sep 8 2016:  Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 11, 2016)
• Sep 21 2016:  Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners.
• Sep 29 2016:  Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents
• Oct 3 2016: Brief amici curiae of National Association of Manufacturers, et al. filed. VIDED.
• Oct 3 2016: Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States filed.
• Oct 6 2016: Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 14, 2016.
• Oct 7 2016: Brief amicus curiae of International Association of Defense Counsel filed.
• Oct 10 2016: Brief amicus curiae of Atlantic Legal Foundation filed.
• Oct 11 2016: Brief amicus curiae of The Employers Group filed.
• Oct 11 2016: Brief amicus curiae of The Retail Litigation Center, Inc. filed.
• Oct 11 2016: Brief amicus curiae of The Business Roundtable filed.
• Oct 11 2016: Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed.
• Nov 15 2016: Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 21, 2016.
• Nov 21 2016: Brief of respondents Stephen Morris, et al. in opposition filed.

Just look at those busy amicus filers.  I bet all those employers are telling the Supreme Court that the world would end in fire and death if they couldn't block class actions for wage and hour violations with arbitration agreements that employees have to sign to work.

Trump.

Hmmmm.  That was unexpected.

Court of Appeal holds that monetary value of accrued vacation need not appear on wage statements until payment is due

In Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. (Oct. 20, 2016), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) held in a PAGA action that Labor Code § 226(a) "does not require employers to include the monetary value of accrued paid vacation time in employee wage statements unless and until a payment is due at the termination of the employment relationship." Slip op., at 2.  The Court easily concluded that the disclosure of such information on wage statements on a regular basis was not required by the current law.  Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Spencer C. Skeen, Jennifer L. Santa Maria, and Sarah A. Williams of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart represented Motel 6 Operating, L.P.

JOB OPPORTUNITY: wage and hour attorneys with roughly three to six years experience

If you are an attorney with wage and hour experience and have been practicing for roughly three to six years, you are welcome to reach out to me at Setareh Law Group (contact information available via state bar -- if you can't find that, you shouldn't be sending me anything anyhow).  I need an associate to add to my litigation team here.  Reading my blog already demonstrates your discerning eye for insightful discourse, so test 1 is complete.

Last day at Berns Weiss LLP

Today is my final day at Berns Weiss LLP. Beginning next week, I will return to familiar terrain, once again into the wage & hour breach.  My thanks to Berns Weiss for everything and best wishes to everyone there.

Law-less Friday: San Diego's arbitrary and capricious six-foot rule

I take my constitutional rights very seriously.  For example, I am more aware of first amendment rights after blogging for so long.  And who hasn't said "thank goodness" for that Fifth Amendment a time or three after a hazy Friday night?  But I've noticed that the contours (oh, the foreshadowing) of rights seem to get tested quite frequently in areas that many consider to be unsavory.  Thus, it is with great sadness that I report to you that in Coe v. City of San Diego (Sept. 28, 2016), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One), held that application of San Diego's six-foot rule was not arbitrary and capricious on the facts before it, affirming the revocation of a permit held by appellant Suzanne Coe.  What, you ask, is the six-foot rule?  I am glad you asked.  The six-foot rule states that it is unlawful for a responsible person to allow a nude person within six feet of a patron at a nude entertainment business.  In a nutshell, Coe's establishment violated the six-foot rule habitually since 2006.  San Diego finally pulled the plug, revoking her permit to operate. I am not going to explain operation of the no-touch and no-fondling rules. And I used to think that being a progressive, liberal state meant that everyone gets the freedom to express themselves however they want.