Supreme Court will issue opinion in Arias v. Superior Court (Dairy, RPI) and other cases on Monday, June 29, 2009

The Supreme Court pre-announces the release of opinions one business day before they are made available to the public.  This morning, the Supreme Court announced forthcoming decisions in two cases that are of interest to wage & hour class/mass action practitioners.  The first, Arias v. Superior Court (Dairy, RPI), concerns issues related to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").  The Court lists two questions that will be answered in the opinion:  "(1) Must an employee who is suing an employer for labor law violations on behalf of himself and others under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203) bring his representative claims as a class action? (2) Must an employee who is pursuing such claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2699) bring them as a class action?"

The Supreme Court will also render its opinion in Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO et al. v. Superior Court (First Transit, Inc., et al., RPI).  Amalgamated addresses novel issues under PAGA and the UCL:  "(1) Does a worker’s assignment to the worker’s union of a cause of action for meal and rest period violations carry with it the worker’s right to sue in a representative capacity under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) or the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)? (2) Does Business and Professions Code section 17203, as amended by Proposition 64, which provides that representative claims may be brought only if the injured claimant "complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure," require that private representative claims meet the procedural requirements applicable to class action lawsuits?"

Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe (Spencer, Appellant) examines limits on advocacy by class action settlement objector

Unlike single party cases, class actions routinely have more than one plaintiff that purports to represent the same (or similar) class. In Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe (Spencer, Appellant) (June 17, 2009), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Two) examined the ability of trial courts to set limits on the methods and extent of that advocacy:

After the trial court conditionally certified the class for settlement purposes, appellant Jeffrey Spencer, attorney for appellant Lisa Hernandez, a plaintiff in Perry, sent a letter to various class members urging them to opt out of the settlement, and to retain him as counsel against Vitamin Shoppe in another class action involving the same matters. The court subsequently issued orders and rulings regarding these communications, barring Spencer from certain future communications, and granting monetary sanctions against him, which appellants Hernandez and Spencer challenge on appeal. In the published portion of this opinion, we affirm these rulings and orders, except that we reverse the trial court‘s imposition of monetary sanctions against Spencer.

Slip op., at 1-2. Later, the Court described aspects of the letter to class members:

Spencer, identifying himself as counsel in Thompson, represented in his letters to various members of the conditionally certified class that if the Perry settlement were approved, "substantial compensation will be forfeited," that "you will not be able to recover compensation for all the rest and meal periods you were denied or for all of the overtime compensation or penalties you are owed," and that "[u]nder California law you are entitled to an extra hour of pay for each rest and meal period that you missed during your employment." He advised them to "protect" themselves from the Perry settlement by opting out of the class and joining the Thompson action, which he stated was "in progress," encouraged them to request exclusion from the settlement, and warned that those who did not exclude themselves would be "stuck" with the settlement‘s terms. He solicited them to retain him as counsel, or to contact him for advice or assistance with respect to excluding themselves from the class, and enclosed his retainer agreement.

Slip op., at 4-5. So, to recap, there are acceptable means of objecting to a proposed class action settlement, and there are unacceptable means. This opinion concerns one of those unacceptable means. But I will note that it is a tough position to be in as an attorney for the same putative class if you believe that you can obtain a better result for that class. In the end, class action settlements are approved not on the basis of whether they are the best possible settlement; instead, the proposed settlement need only be good enough.

Your quarterly Brinker update

When the California Supreme Court grants a Petition for Review, it's okay to leave and go get a cup of coffee.  You have time.  But that doesn't mean that nothing is happening behind the scenes.  In Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) we have developments.  On May 7, 2009, Real Party in Interest Hohnbaum requested an extension until August 4, 2009 to file the Reply Brief on the merits.  On May 14, 2009 the Supreme Court granted an extension through June 22, 2009, with the additional proviso that no further extensions were contemplated.  However, today the Supreme Court granted a two-week extension to that previously firm deadline.  The Reply Brief on the merits is now due on July 6, 2009.  After that, the amicus bloodbath will ensue (they are due on July 20, 2009).

California Supreme Court activity for the week of June 15, 2009

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today.  Notable results include:

• A Petition for Review was denied in Etheridge v. Reins International California, Inc., 172 Cal. App. 4th 908 (2009) (tip pooling)
• A Petition for Review was denied in Budrow v. Dave & Buster's of California, 171 Cal. App. 4th 875 (2009) (tip pooling)
• A Petition for Review was denied in Franco v. Athens Disposal Company, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1277 (2009) (class action waiver and PAGA waiver in arbitration agreement)
• The Court also issued an opinion modification but denied rehearing in Strauss v. Horton (2009)

This was a rare week where the California Supreme Court denied review or other relief in every matter considered in Conference.

Other June 10, 2009 actions by the California Supreme Court

After two weeks without a conference, June 10, 2009 was an active day for the California Supreme Court.  Aside from the other activity posted today, some other notable actions include:

• A Petition for Review was denied in Chindarah v. Pick Up Stix, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 796 [Operation of Labor Code section 206.5]
• A depublication request was denied in Tarkington v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (Albertson’s, Inc.) (April 13, 2009) [Regarding demurrers to class action allegations]

Haro v. City of Rosemead confirms that "opt-in" class actions are unavailable under California's class action statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 382

In a case of flirting with issues of first impression, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) was asked to review an order denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. The plot twist? Haro v. City of Rosemead (June 9, 2009) concerns plaintiffs' attempt to certify pursuant to section 382 a claim for violation of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), a part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). After concluding that FLSA claims cannot be certified under section 382 as a matter of law, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Court first summarized the FLSA provision at issue in the appeal:

Section 216(b) goes on to provide that an action under this provision may be brought against any employer in a federal or state court “by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.” The italicized sentence is colloquially referred to as an “opt-in” provision (7B Wright et al., Fed. Practice and Procedure (3d ed. 2005) § 1807, p. 472) and it is this opt-in provision that this purported appeal addresses.

(Slip op., at p. 2.) The Court then expressed the tension between the FLSA's "opt-in" procedure and the "opt-out" mechanism of California's class action statute:

As one court has put it: “There is a fundamental, irreconcilable difference between the class action described by Rule 23 and that provided for by FLSA § 16(b). In a Rule 23 proceeding a class is described; if the action is maintainable as a class action, each person within the description is considered to be a class member and, as such, is bound by judgment, whether favorable or unfavorable, unless he has 'opted out' of the suit. Under § 16(b) of FLSA, on the other hand, no person can become a party plaintiff and no person will be bound by or may benefit from judgment unless he has affirmatively 'opted into' the class; that is, given his written, filed consent.” (LaChapelle v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., supra, 513 F.2d at p. 288, fn. omitted.)

The fact that the opt-in feature is irreconcilable with a class action has not only been reaffirmed as a matter of federal civil procedure (Whalen v. W.R. Grace & Co. (3d Cir. 1995) 56 F.3d 504, 506, fn. 3), at least one California court has held that the opt-in feature cannot be adopted in California class actions. (Hypertouch, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1527, 1550 (Hypertouch).)

(Slip op., at p. 3.) After concurring in the analysis supplied by Hypertouch, the Court then added yet another reason why "opt-in" class actions are not available in California:

We add to the foregoing the observation that it is no small matter that California Rules of Court, rule 3.766, which governs notice to class members, makes no provision for notice when the class members opt into, rather than out of, the class. Rule 3.766 addresses the contents of the notice and the manner of giving notice in considerable detail; notice in class actions is not a simple matter. The same is true of notice to persons “similarly situated” in FLSA actions. Evidently, there may be as many as three distinct procedures employed by federal courts in dealing with notice in FLSA cases. Some courts employ a two-step process that extends to the time that discovery is complete, others follow class action procedures and yet others have adopted the old procedures employed in the pre-1966 spurious class action cases. (Thiessen v. General Electric Capital Corp. (2001) 267 F.3d 1095, 1102-1103.) Given such disparities, it is unthinkable that if California class actions under section 382 include opt-in classes, the giving of notice in such classes would not be regulated by rule 3.766. Putting the same point more directly, given the potential complexities with notice to persons “similarly situated” in opt-in FLSA actions, the fact that rule 3.766 does not deal with opt-in notices is a very clear indication that there are no opt-in class actions in California.

(Slip op., at p. 9.) In an interesting procedural close to the opinion, the Court dismissed the appeal because it could not meet the "death knell" standard for the appeal of the denial of class certification:

First. Appellants cannot maintain their FLSA action with the opt-in feature as a class action under section 382. (Hypertouch, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th 1527, 1550.) In other words, as a matter of California law appellants are not entitled to a class action certification.

Second. Ordinarily, under the death knell doctrine the appellate court will review the merits of the decision denying certification. That is not true of this case; neither the trial court nor this court addressed the substantive merits of class action certification in this case.

Third. The order denying class certification is not the death knell of appellants‟ action. The order does not produce a terminal result, i.e., there is no reason why the action cannot go forward with appellants as plaintiffs. Specifically, there is nothing to prevent this action going forward as an opt-in, collective FLSA action. While there may or may not be issues about the statute of limitations, there is no question that this FLSA action as it is presently constituted can go forward to trial.

(Slip op., at p. 11.) In case anyone missed it, no "opt-in" class actions can be certified in California under Code of Civil Procedure section 382.

in brief: Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage Dist. holds that governmental entities are exempt from wage & hour laws absent express statutory language to contrary

In Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage Dist. (June 3, 2009) the Court of Appeal (Fifth Appellate District) held that governmental entities are not subject to a wide array of wage & hour laws absent express legislation to the contrary.  The water district defendant was determined to be a municipal entity, thus entitled to that broad grant of immunity.

Petition for Review denied in Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc.

The California Supreme Court has denied the Petition for Review in Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 72.  My prior post on the case can be found here.  The denial is unfortunate, as the case is likely to be misconstrued as a decision about the independent contractor/employee distinction, rather than the jury instruction and standard of review opinion that it is.

In D'Este v. Bayer Corporation, Ninth Circuit certifies interesting issue to California Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit has been certifying questions to various state Supreme Courts with increasing frequency.  After giving this observed increase some thought, I theorize that at least one reason for this increase is the shift of some class actions to federal court as a result of CAFA.  For example, in a post on this blog, I noted a recent question certified to the California Supreme Court about e-mail spam.  Other issues certified to state supreme courts are simply questions of first impression, at least as the caselaw is viewed by the Ninth Circuit.  One example of such an issue involves a question about statutes of limitation in California, noted in this post on Products Liability Prof Blog.  The most famous recent example involves the certification of questions in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., covered on The UCL Practitioner.

On May 5, 2009, in D'Este v. Bayer Corporation (link now corrected) the Ninth Circuit certified a challenging question that actually a colleague of mine fits in a class action we both worked on several years ago.  Here is the key question certified to the California Supreme Court:

“The Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders 1-2001 and 4-2001 define “outside salesperson” to mean “any person, 18 years of age or over, who customarily and regularly works more than half the working time away from the employer’s place of business selling tangible or intangible items or obtaining orders or contracts for products, services or use of facilities.” 8 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 11010, subd. 2(J); 11040, subd. 2(M). Does a pharmaceutical sales representative (PSR) qualify as an “outside salesperson” under this definition, if the PSR spends more than half the working time away from the employer’s place of business and personally interacts with doctors and hospitals on behalf of drug companies for the purpose of increasing individual doctors’ prescriptions of specific drugs?

(Order, at p. 5193.)  But the question doesn't really capture the issue.  The underlying issue, developed in the factual description, turns on the fundamental nature of sales for purposes of the "outside salesperson" overtime exemption.  The pharmaceutical representatives in question promote Bayer products to doctors and hospitals, but they don't actually enter into bindings sales agreements.  Instead, they attempt to influence the prescription decisions of doctors and hospitals.  Are they "selling" when they engage in this promotion that does not end in a commercial transaction?  The Ninth Circuit thinks that the wage order can be interpreted in either manner.  Without CAFA, this issue would certainly have made its way to a California Court of Appeal.  Instead, it has moved outside the state court system, up to the Ninth Circuit, and may end up at the California Supreme Court through this inefficient route.

Update on 2009-05-07 23:39 by The Complex Litigator

UPDATE:  With apologies to the UCL Practitioner, I've fixed the link error to the 9th Circuit opinion.  It happens from time to time when posting while tired.

Answer on the merits filed in Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum)

When the Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review in Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), the news opportunities in the case diminshed substantially.  For those in need of a Brinker news fix, its worth a mention that on April 28, 2009, Brinker Restaurant submitted its Answer on the merits, along with an application for permission to file an overlong Answer Brief.  Since the Real Party in Interest received approval from the Court to file an overlong Opening Brief, it's safe to assume that the Answer will be approved as well.

The docket also shows that the Amicus filings are already underway.  If Branick is instructive, expect the Amicus briefing period to continue until well into the Fall.