Curious about Pineda v. Bank of America? See how it went for yourself.

Yesterday the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Pineda v. Bank of America.  Here is a portion of the Court's official extended summary of the case:

Pineda filed suit against Bank of America, alleging a violation of Labor Code section 203, on October 22, 2007 — more than a year after his injury. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether his suit was timely filed. Pineda argues that a three-year statute of limitations applies to actions under section 203, relying on the following language: “Suit may be filed for these penalties at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for the wages from which the penalties arise.” Defendant Bank of America disagrees, interpreting the same language to apply only when a plaintiff sues for both unpaid wages and section 203 penalties. Because Bank of America paid Pineda his final wages, albeit late, and Pineda now seeks only section 203 penalties, Bank of America reasons that a one-year statute of limitations applies and Pineda’s suit is barred as untimely.

The case was argued as part of an educational outreach session.  The Court heard argument in the Court of Appeal Courthouse in Fresno. Hundreds of students from all 9 counties in the Fifth Appellate District were given the opportunity to see the Supreme Court in operation.

You can view the oral argument at The California Channel.  Jump to about the 7:30 mark in the video to find the start of the matter.

Update on 2010-10-06 20:40 by The Complex Litigator

In my haste to publish, I left out one important detail.  My colleague, Greg Karasik, argued the case for Plaintiff Pineda.

Chinese Wang decision is big news

Wrong, but necessary somehow.  A little later than promised, but Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc. (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2010) has too much going on not to receive some additional attention.  At the outset, Wang was a basic wage & hour case.  The plaintiffs alleged that employees were made to work in excess of eight hours per day and/or forty hours per week. They alleged that they were wrongfully denied overtime compensation, meal and rest breaks, accurate and itemized wage statements, and penalties for wages due but not promptly paid at termination.  The subsequent procedural twists and turns were anything but standard.  But despite the many moving parts in the decision, the Ninth Circuit summarized the case in a few sentences:

The district court certified the FLSA claim as a collective action. It certified the state-law claims as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) and, alternatively, under Rule 23(b)(3). In the state-law class action, it provided for notice and opt out, but subsequently invalidated the opt outs. It granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs; held jury and bench trials; entered judgment for plaintiffs; awarded attorney’s fees to plaintiffs; and conducted a new opt-out process. CDN appeals, challenging aspects of each of these rulings, as well as the jury’s verdict.

Slip op., at 16393.  After the trial court certified a narrowed class under Rule 23(b)(2) (finding that injunctive relief was on "equal footing" with monetary relief), the trial court approved a notice that authorized class members to opt into the FLSA action and out of the state law-based class action.  The notice precipitated the first major upheaval in the case:

Forms were mailed to 187 individuals, and notice was posted and forms made available at CDN’s Monterey Park facility. Plaintiffs received back about 155 opt-out forms, including 18 from individuals not on the original list of class members.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to invalidate the opt outs, for curative notice, and to restrict CDN’s communication with class members. On June 7, 2006, the court granted the motion, finding that “the opt out period was rife with instances of coercive conduct, including threats to employees’ jobs, termination of an employee supporting the litigation, the posting of signs urging individuals not to tear the company apart, and the abnormally high rate of opt outs.” Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 485, 491 (C.D. Cal. 2006). The district court deferred any future opt-out procedure until after the trial on the merits.

Slip op., at 16395.  Facing cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court then ruled that news reporters were not exempt professionals.  Next, the matter proceeded to a trial.  The defendant contended that only the FLSA claims should be tried and that UCL claims were pre-empted by the FLSA, but the trial court elected to retain supplemental jurisdiction, rejected the pre-emption argument and tried the state law claims as well.

The Court of Appeal first tacked the exemption analysis.  After examining decisions from other Circuits, the Court concluded that the reporters did not satisfy the creative professionals exemption.

Although the evidence submitted revealed disputes over how to characterize CDN’s journalists, we agree with the district court that, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to CDN, the reporters do not satisfy the criteria for the creative professional exemption.

Slip op., at 16400.  Next, the Court examined whether the trial court had applied the correct criteria for determining whether certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was appropriate.  The Court concluded that, although the matter was decided prior to Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), the trial court applied essentially identical standards and correctly decided the issue.

The Court then turned to the invalidation of opt-outs.  The Court first held that a trial court's authority to regulate class communications and the notice process implicitly confers that power to take corrective action when that process has been tainted.  The Court then considered whether the evidence submitted was sufficient to support the trial court's decision.  The Court noted in particular the evidence submitted by a class action notice company regarding normal opt-out rates:

Finally, plaintiffs submitted a declaration from the president of a class action notice company explaining that ordinarily opt-out rates do not exceed one percent. In this case, the district court found that current employees opted out at a 90 percent rate, whereas former employees opted out at a 25 percent rate.

Slip op., at 16407.  After concluding that the decision to invalidate the opt-outs was supported, the Court examined whether deferring a new opt-out period until after the trial was appropriate.  Again the Court noted the trial court's broad discretion to regulate the notice process: "The ordinary procedure is to give notice at the time of class certification. But the rule does not mandate notice at any particular time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)."  Slip op., at 16408.  The Court then affirmed the trial court's conclusion that it was necessary to delay a new notice and opt-out process in order to avoid the taint imposed during the initial process.

Finally, after observing that the evidence supported the jury verdict regarding meal periods under either the "provide" or "ensure" standards currently up for review by the California Supreme Court, the Court ended its Opinion by explicitly holding what most courts in the Ninth Circuit had already concluded: the FLSA does not preempt state law claims like the UCL.

District Court decertifies class of customer service representative employed by Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.

United States District Court Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton (Northern District of California) granted Defendant Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.'s motion to decertify a class of "customer service representatives."  Wamboldt v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., 2010 WL 3743925 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2010).  The CSRs had duties extending well beyond what one might expect from the job title, including customer sales, client collections, and various telephone responsibilities, as well as on-site servicing of equipment, transportation of hazardous waste, and driving of company vehicles in order to perform customer service calls.  The hazardous waste transportation and the occasional use of large vehicles (in excess of 30,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight) were the primary culprits underlying the motion to decertify.

Breaking News: Ninth Circuit issue two class action opinions addressing novel issues in the Ninth Circuit

After a bit of a lull on the class action front, the Ninth Circuit had a busy morning.  Two major opinions on class action issues were just issued by Ninth Circuit panels, and both opinions are sure to generate a good deal of discussion.  Both address areas of unsettled law among various federal courts.  The first is of interest to wage & hour practitioners and the second addresses the argument that large statutory damage awards defeat "superiority" of the class action procedure:

• Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc. (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2010) is something of a kitchen sink of class action issues.  Among other things, the Ninth Circuit affirmed (1) the concurrent prosecution of a FLSA opt-in collective action and a Rule 23 opt-out class action, (2) the invalidation of Rule 23 opt-outs due to coercion, (3) the decision to conduct a corrective opt-out process after the trial, and (4) certification under Rule 23(b)(2).  The Court also held that the UCL was not preempted by the FLSA.
• Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2010) concerned the singular issue of a class certification denial on superiority grounds.  The Ninth Circuit concluded that none of the three grounds relied upon by the district court — the disproportionality between the potential statutory liability and the actual harm suffered, the enormity of the potential damages, or AMC’s good faith compliance — justified the denial of class certification on superiority grounds.

Both opinions are substantial, and I will try to give both an extended treatment this evening.  Full disclosure: Greg Karasik of Spiro Moss represents Plaintiff Bateman.

District Court narrows but does not entirely decertify class alleging misclassification as exempt from overtime

United States District Court Judge Samuel Conti (Northern District of California) granted in part and denied in part Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.'s Motion to Decertify a class of store managers contending that they were misclassified as exempt from overtime.  Cruz v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2010 WL 3619800 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2010).  The facts and result here are interesting.

Dollar Tree requires its store managers to certify that they spend more than fifty percent of their actual work time each week performing tasks on a list of 17 items that are all arguably managerial-type duties. Dollar Tree's expert, Robert Crandall, MBA, analyzed employee task certifications comprising 29,431 workweeks during the class period.  The analysis shows that approximately 62 percent of store managers "always certified that they spent the majority of their workweeks on the seventeen managerial tasks, 2.5 percent reported that they never spent most of their time performing these tasks, and about 35 percent of SMs fall somewhere in between."  Slip op., at 2.

The Court then offered this interesting analysis:

In this case, unlike in Wells Fargo II, Whiteway, and Weigele, Plaintiffs have common proof of how SMs were actually spending their time. Plaintiffs can rely on the certification forms that SMs signed every week to, in the words of the Ninth Circuit, transform what would otherwise be an individual issue into a common one. See Wells Fargo I, 571 F.3d at 959. However, the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Vinole and Wells Fargo I persuades the Court of the need to narrow the class definition to include only SMs who responded “no” on their certification forms during the class period. Narrowing the class in this way ensures that common issues will predominate over individual ones, and significantly lessens the risk that the class consists of both injured and uninjured parties.

In this case, Plaintiffs “must show that it is more likely than not that [Dollar Tree's] exemption as applied to [SMs] was a policy or practice of misclassification.” Marlo, 251 F.R.D. at 483. In order to make this showing, Plaintiffs can point to common evidence including Dollar Tree's decision to uniformly classify SMs as exempt, Dollar Tree's employment hierarchy and structure, its standardized policies and training procedures for SMs, the common tools it requires SMs to utilize, and, most importantly of all, the fact that SMs often certified on a weekly basis that they were not spending most of their time on managerial tasks. Dollar Tree's common policy of having SMs fill out weekly certifications obviates the need for much individual testimony from SMs concerning how they spent their time.

The Court is persuaded that common issues will predominate over individual ones only if it narrows the class to SMs who responded “no” at least once on the weekly payroll certification forms. According to Dollar Tree's analysis of certification forms comprising 29,431 workweeks, approximately 62 percent of SMs always certified that they spent a majority of their time performing managerial tasks. Crandall Decl. ¶¶ 15, 22-23. If the class were to continue to include SMs who always certified “yes,” then Plaintiffs would be required to show that these SMs were not always being truthful, and this issue could not be resolved without resorting to individualized inquiries that would quickly overwhelm the common issues in this case.

No such individualized inquiries are necessary if the Court focuses its attention on SMs who certified “no.” Dollar Tree classified this group of employees as exempt, yet they certified at least once that they were spending most of their time during particular workweeks performing non-managerial tasks. With regard to this group of employees, Plaintiffs can use the weekly payroll certifications and the other evidence of Dollar Tree's standardized practices and procedures in their attempt to convince the jury that “misclassification was the rule rather than the exception” at Dollar Tree. See Sav-On Drugs Stores, Inc. v.Super. Ct., 34 Cal.4th 319, 330, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 906, 96 P.3d 194 (2004).

Slip op., at 6-7.  The Court then addressed what is, perhaps, the most obvious challenge to this approach:

Nonetheless, the Court recognizes that some SMs may have always certified “yes” even though they were not spending most of their time on managerial tasks. The Court does not want to preclude these SMs from pursuing their misclassification claims on an individual basis. The Court is willing to entertain a motion to equitably toll the statute of limitations on their misclassification claims so as to preserve their right to pursue individual claims against Dollar Tree. See Marlo, 251 F.R.D. at 476, 488 (after decertification of case, inviting parties to brief question of whether statute of limitations on plaintiff's individual claims should be tolled).

Slip op., at 8.  The balance of the opinion consists mostly of a discussion about the positions of the respective experts used by the parties.  While that is also an educational read, the Court's solution regarding the class definition (only those persons that certified at least once that they did not meet the 50% level) is worth taking the time to evaluate carefully.

District Court finds "first-to-file rule" inapplicable where first-filed case is no longer a class action

United States District Court Judge William Alsup (Northern District of California) denied a motion by defendant P.F.Chang's China Bistro, Inc. to transfer a putative wage & hour class action to the Central District of California.  Dubee v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., 2010 WL 3323808 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010).  Defendant asserted the "first-to-file rule" and an earlier case pending in the Central District as grounds for the transfer.  After explaining that the "first-to-file rule is an underdeveloped but generally recognized legal doctrine regarding duplicative lawsuits," the Court denied the motion:

When deciding whether to apply the first-to-file rule, the court looks to three threshold factors: (1) the chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of issues. Ibid. The two actions need not be identical; it is enough that they are “substantially similar.” Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir.1989).

In the instant action, the first factor of chronology is met. The Vasquez action was filed over a year before the instant action. The second factor, however, is not met. While P.F. Chang's China Bistro is the defendant in both actions, the plaintiffs are neither the same nor “substantially similar.” As stated, while the Vasquez action was originally filed as a putative class action, it is now proceeding solely as an individual action. In the instant case, plaintiff Dubee is proceeding as a representative plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other California P.F. Chang's employees that are similarly situated. While this class-if certified-could encompass the plaintiff in Vasquez, the claims asserted by the plaintiff in Vasquez do not (and will not) encompass plaintiff and the putative class in the instant action. For this reason, the two actions are not substantially similar with respect to the parties involved.

Slip op., at 2.  The Court noted as significant the fact that certification was never briefed in Vasquez.

In Gutierrez v. California Commerce Club, Inc., Court of Appeal reverses order sustaining a demurrer to class allegations in a wage & hour suit

Those corporate employers are nothing if not a tenacious lot.  They keep challenging class action allegations at the pleading stage despite a substantial weight of authority finding that approach to be improper in most class actions.  In Gutierrez v. Commerce Club, Inc. (August 23, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division One) reviewed a trial court order sustaining a demurrer to class allegations without leave to amend in a suit alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs and other similarly situated members of the putative class were injured by the Club's unlawful policy and practice of denying meal and rest breaks to certain hourly, non-union employees.

After stating the procedural history in fair detail, the Court restated some of the purposes for class action litigation:

The wisdom of permitting the action to survive a demurrer is elementary.  "'Class action litigation is proper whenever it may be determined that it is more beneficial to the litigants and to the judicial process to try a suit in one action rather than in several actions. . . . It is clear that the more intimate the judge becomes with the character of the action, the more intelligently he may make the determination. If the judicial machinery encourages the decision to be made at the pleading stages and the judge decides against class litigation, he divests the court of the power to later alter that decision . . . . Therefore, because the sustaining of demurrers without leave to amend represents the earliest possible determination of the propriety of class action litigation, it should be looked upon with disfavor.' [Citation.]" (Tarkington, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511; see also Prince, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 1326.)

Slip op., at 7-8.  The Court then agreed with the defendant that there have been occasions where class allegations were resolved at the demurrer phase.  But the Court went on to explain that wage & hour cases were not amongst those relatively rare examples:

The Club is correct that there are circumstances in which granting a motion to strike or sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend a class action complaint will be appropriate. A review of the cases in which courts have approved the use of demurrers to determine the propriety of class actions, however, reveals that the majority of those actions involved mass torts or other actions in which individual issues predominate.

Slip op., at 8.  In contrast to mass tort actions, the Court found that wage & hour cases were generally unsuited to evaluation of class claims on the pleadings:

There is no discernible difference between this action and the wage and hour cases (or their type) at issue in Prince and, more recently, in Tarkington. As we explained in Prince and reiterated in Tarkington, such cases "'routinely proceed as class actions' because they usually involve '"a single set of facts applicable to all members,"' and '"one question of law common to class members."'" (Tarkington, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511, quoting Prince, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1327–1328.) As long as the lead plaintiff "'alleges institutional practices . . . that affected all of the members of the potential class in the same manner, and it appears from the complaint that all liability issues can be determined on a class-wide basis,'" no more is required at the pleading stage. (Tarkington at p. 1511.)

Slip op., at 9.  The Court finished its discussion with emphasis:

We return again to and rely upon the well-established principle, that "only in mass tort actions (or other actions equally unsuited to class action treatment) [should] class suitability . . . be determined at the pleading stage. In other cases, particularly those involving wage and hour claims, [such as the instant action,] class suitability should not be determined by demurrer." (Prince, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 1325, italics added; see also Tarkington, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1512.)

Slip op., at 11.

While their message should be clear, somehow I doubt that it will appreciably reduce that massive waste of resources devoted to pleadings challenges.

District Court certifies a class of newspaper carriers classified as independent contractors

United States District Court Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz (Southern District of California) certified a class of newspaper home delivery carriers classified as independent contractors by Lee Publications, Inc. but alleging their status as employees of Lee Publications.  Dalton, et al. v. Lee Publications, Inc., ___ F.R.D. ___, 2010 WL 2985130 (July 27, 2010).  As is usually the case, commonality was the primary area of dispute.  The Court succinctly stated California's approach to identifying the employer-employee relationship:

Under California law, the most important aspect of the employee-employer relationship is the “right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired.” Cristler v. Express Messenger Sys., Inc., 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 77, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 34 (2009) (citing Empire Star Mines Co. v. Cal. Employment Comm'n, 28 Cal.2d 33, 43-44, 168 P.2d 686 (1946), overruled on other grounds by People v. Sims, 32 Cal.3d 468, 479 n. 8, 186 Cal.Rptr. 77, 651 P.2d 321 (1982)).

Although control is the primary factor, California courts also consider several secondary factors. “Strong evidence in support of an employment relationship is the right to discharge at will, without cause.” Empire Star Mines, 28 Cal.2d at 43, 168 P.2d 686. Other secondary factors include (1) whether the one performing services is engaged in a distinct occupation; (2) the kind of occupation and whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision; (3) the skill required; (4) whether the principal or the worker supplies the tools and the place of work; (5) the length of time for which the services are to be performed; (6) the method of payment, by time or by job; (7) whether the work is a part of the regular business of the principal; (8) whether the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship; (9) the hiree's degree of investment in his business and whether the hiree holds himself or herself out to be in business with an independent business license; (10) whether the hiree has employees; (11) the hiree's opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill; and (12) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer's business. JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 142 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1064 n. 14, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 563 (2006) (citing S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341, 350-55, 256 Cal.Rptr. 543, 769 P.2d 399 (1989)).

Slip op., at 5.

Trial court, in Avalos v. La Salsa, Inc., offers early glimpse of how California courts may reconcile Stolt-Nielsen and Gentry

Earlier today, in Avalos v. La Salsa, Inc., JCCP 4488, the Santa Barbara Superior Court, Judge Denise deBellefeuille presiding, granted the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of a class certification order in to consider the impact of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 130 S.Ct. 1758 (2010) on the coordinated proceedings before the Court.  After an extensive analysis of Stolt-Nielsen, including its interaction with Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 443 (2007), the Court affirmed the certification order previously entered.  While the certification aspect is mildly interesting, the Court's extensive discussion of the interplay between arbitration clauses and class actions in California is the pot of gold in this unusually thorough trial court order.  While the attached opinion is a tentative ruling, the Court adopted its tentative without modification.

You can view the embedded opinion in the acrobat.com flash viewer below:

If the viewer isn't working for you (say, if you are viewing this on an iPad or iPhone), you can download the opinion here.

Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. examines fee shifting triggers in wage & hour litigation

After a very brief trip to the Windy City (aka, the Humid City in Need of a Breeze and my apologies to JB for not visiting), I bring you the first of yesterday's opinions related to class actions.  In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (July 27, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) examined an award of attorney fees to the defendant following a dismissal by the plaintiff when certification was denied.  Fees were awarded by the trial court on causes of action for UCL violations (first cause of action), rest period violations (sixth cause of action) and section 2810 violation for entering into contracts while knowing them to be insufficient to pay all wages owed (seventh cause of action).

The plaintiff argued that bilateral attorney fee awards are precluded in any "action" where a claim arising under section 1194 is included as one of the claims.  The Court explained why it rejected that construction:

Although Kirby advances a plausible reading of the legislative history, we reject it in favor of construing the section 1194 exception as applying only to causes of action for unpaid minimum and overtime wages. (Accord Earley, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1430.) To adopt Kirby‟s statutory construction would allow the exception of section 1194's unilateral fee shifting to eviscerate the rule of section 218.5.

We harmonize sections 218.5 and 1194 by holding that section 218.5 applies to causes of action alleging nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or contributions to health, welfare and pension funds. If, in the same case, a plaintiff adds a cause of action for nonpayment of minimum wages or overtime, a defendant cannot recover attorney's fees for work in defending against the minimum wage or overtime claims. Nonetheless, the addition of a claim for unpaid minimum wages or overtime does not preclude recovery by a prevailing defendant for a cause of action unrelated to the minimum wage or overtime claim so long as a statute or contract provides for fee shifting in favor of the defendant.

Slip op., at 16-17.

More interesting is the Court's conclusion that section 218.5 applies to rest break claims:

Kirby's sixth cause of action alleged that Kirby was “owed an additional one hour of wages per day per missed rest period.”  As a claim seeking additional wages, the sixth cause of action was subject to section 218.5's provision of attorney's fees for “any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions . . . .” (Italics added.)

Slip op., at 19 (footnotes omitted).  The Court explained why the plaintiff was incorrect that section 1194 controlled the fee issue:

Kirby's claim was not based on a failure to pay the statutory minimum wage for hours he actually worked. Instead, the cause of action was one for failure to provide rest periods. If his claim had succeeded, Kirby would have been entitled to an additional wage “at the employee's rate of compensation.” (See fn. 25, ante.) The “employee's rate of compensation” refers to the contractual rate of compensation, not the legal minimum wage. Consequently, the claim is not one premised on failure to pay the minimum wage.

Slip op., at 19.  The Court relied, in part, on Murphy, which, oddly enough, seems to provide the answer to virtually all wage & hour mysteries.  It wouldn't be surprising to see an increase in minimum wage claims and a concurrent reduction in contractual wage payment claims.

The Court had less difficulty analyzing the arguments related to the UCL claim and the section 2810 claim for underfunded contracts.  Regarding the UCL, the Court observed that it was a settled issue that attorney's fees were not specified as available under the UCL.  As for the last claim, the Court found that the fee provision in the statute was a unilateral fee-shifting statute.