In Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp., court holds that commissions need not be strict percentage of sales

Trials of class actions are uncommon.  Here, though, we have an example of a class action that made it through trial (though admittedly a bench trial, which is more like a long and painful, multi-day summary judgment hearing).  In Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp. (January 24, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) considered "whether the trial court erred in determining that an employer was not required to pay overtime wages (Lab. Code, § 510) to a class of its current and former employees because they were subject to the commissioned employees exemption (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 11070, subd. (3)(D))."

The class of employees was comprised of recruiters that located potential employees for clients of Surrex.  Surrex was paid only when an employee was successfully placed with a client.  The class members were paid a percentage of "adjusted gross profit."  The "adjusted gross profit" was calculated by subtracting various costs from the amount clients paid for a placement.

The Court reached two key conclusions that resulted in an affirmance for the trial court.  First, the Court concluded that "sales-related activities" should be viewed more broadly than the time involved in the sale itself:  "We also reject appellants' contention that time spent 'searching on the computer, searching for candidates on the website, cold calling, interviewing candidates, inputting data, and submitting resumes,' may not be considered sales-related activities."  Slip op., at 14.

Second, the Court concluded that "commissions" do not have to equal a fixed percentage of revenues:

We disagree that either the Keyes Motors court or the Ramirez court intended to preclude an employer from calculating commissions based on anything other than a straight percentage of profits. Most importantly, neither the Keyes Motors court nor the Ramirez court had any occasion to address this issue, because in both cases, the employees' commissions were based on a straight percentage of the price charged to the customer. (Keyes Motors, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 561 [The "mechanic earns a fixed percentage of the hourly rate charged the customer"]; Ramirez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 804 [employee received a "percentage of the price of the bottles of water and related products sold"].) " ' "It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered." ' " (Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 46 Cal.4th 106, 127, citations omitted.) Thus, "the Keyes Motors definition of 'commission' . . . does not control our case." (Areso, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006.)

Slip op., at 17.  The Court then focused on incentives, distinguishing Keyes Motors and Ramirez:

In this case, in contrast, appellants affected not only the revenue that Surrex received, but also the costs that Surrex would bear. Paige Freeman, a senior consulting services manager, testified that consulting service managers negotiated both the rates that Surrex paid candidate/consultants and the rate at which Surrex billed clients for those services. Appellants therefore had an impact on both the revenue (bill rate) that Surrex received and the costs (pay rate) that Surrex incurred. Thus, while in Keyes Motors and Ramirez, a commission system based on the price of the products or services provided employees with an incentive to increase the number of repairs performed (Keyes Motors) or the number of bottles of water sold (Ramirez), in this case, a commission system based solely on revenue or price would fail to reward employees who helped Surrex achieve greater profits by limiting costs. We see nothing in Ramirez or Keyes Motors that requires such a result, particularly since neither court had occasion to consider a compensation system similar to the one at issue in this case.

Slip op., at 18.  This is all very interesting, but the Court cites no authority in support of its power to define commissions so as to apply the incentives that it views as, in some manner, "better."  Instead, the Court falls back to Black's Law Dictionary for its definition of commission.  Maybe someone has some regulatory history materials handy to check and see whether the Court has the right of what the IWC intended when it created this exemption.

Arbitration agreement did not clearly and unequivocally delegate to arbitrator the power to determine unconscionability

Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2772 (2010) held that parties could delegate to the arbitrator the power to decide threshold decisions of arbitrability.  This, of course, leads to questions about how explicit such a delegation must be to pass muster.  Rent-A-Center observed that, unless the parties "clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise," the question of arbitrability is one for the Court.  In Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (February 16, 2012), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Five) examined an arbitration agreement to determine whether the trial court erred by deciding the arbitration question and concluding that the agreement was unconscionable.

The Court first considered the issue of who should decide the arbitrability question:

The “clear and unmistakable” test reflects a “heightened standard” of proof. (Rent-A-Center, supra, 130 S.Ct. at p. 2777, fn. 1.) That is because the question of who would decide the unconscionability of an arbitration provision is not one that the parties would likely focus upon in contracting, and the default expectancy is that the court would decide the matter. (First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945.) Thus, the Supreme Court has decreed, a contract's silence or ambiguity about the arbitrator's power in this regard cannot satisfy the clear and unmistakable evidence standard. (Id. at pp. 943-945.)

Slip op., at 9.  Turning to the language of the agreement, the Court concluded that the agreement was ambiguous.  The Court held that a provision directing “[a]ny disputes, differences or controversies” to arbitration could apply to the threshold question of arbitrability or all substantive disputes.  Becasue the language was not clear and unmistakable, the Court held that no delegation of the threshold question was enforcable.

Next, the Court considered whether a reference to AAA rules, which give arbitrators the right to decide arbitrability, was sufficient to delegate that question to the arbitrator.  The Court examined existing decisions, finding a split of authority on the issue.  After identifying cases on both sides of the issue, the Court concluded that a reference to AAA rules, without more, was insufficient:

In our view, while the incorporation of AAA rules into an agreement might be sufficient indication of the parties' intent in other contexts, we seriously question how it provides clear and unmistakable evidence that an employer and an employee intended to submit the issue of the unconscionability of the arbitration provision to the arbitrator, as opposed to the court. There are many reasons for stating that the arbitration will proceed by particular rules, and doing so does not indicate that the parties' motivation was to announce who would decide threshold issues of enforceability.

Slip op., at 19.  The Court also noted that the agreement was unclear as to whether AAA rules or rules of another arbitration entity would govern.

The Court next reviewed the trial court's finding of unconscionability.  First, the Court exmained the procedural unconscionability:

Substantial evidence supports the court's finding. Ajamian, who had already been working as a broker for almost 10 months, had no realistic bargaining power and was required to sign the Employment Agreement to receive her promised compensation – for work she had already performed. Furthermore, the Employment Agreement was not the subject of any negotiation. Ajamian stated in her declaration that she wanted to make changes to the Employment Agreement and felt uncomfortable signing it, but felt she had no choice based on Margolis' statements.

Slip op., at 26.  The Court concluded that it was unnecessary to quantify the degree of procedural unconscionability, since substantive unconscionability was evident in several ways:

In finding that the arbitration provision was unconscionable, the court found that the damages limitation in the arbitration provision was unlawful and the attorney fees clause elsewhere in the Employment Agreement (which the arbitration provision would enforce) was unconscionable. Ajamian also argued, as she does here, that the arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable for reasons the trial court did not rule upon: the provision requires her to forfeit numerous unwaivable substantive California statutes; it grants CantorCO2e discretion to choose the arbitration rules and source of the arbitration panel; and it forces Ajamian to pay tens of thousands of dollars she did not have when she entered into the agreement to obtain relief by arbitrating before three arbitrators in New York.

Slip op., at 28-29.  During its extensive discussion, the Court explained by Pearson Dental did not apply:

As a general proposition (where the clear and unmistakable test does not apply), we agree that ambiguous terms should be construed, where reasonable, in favor of arbitration. But the Pearson Dental rule does not apply here. In Pearson Dental, the court considered a single potentially unconscionable term in an arbitration agreement; here, there are multiple unconscionable terms in the Employment Agreement. Moreover, the term in Pearson Dental was ambiguous and did not expressly preclude the plaintiff from pursuing any remedy; by contrast, the unconscionable terms in the Employment Agreement categorically mandate that arbitration proceed, under the laws of New York and an arbitration organization of CantorCO2e's choosing, without the relief to which Ajamian would be entitled in California, but with an obligation to pay CantorCO2e's attorney fees if unsuccessful. Further, the language of the arbitration provision does not lend itself to an interpretation that the arbitrator may make awards contrary to the terms of the Employment Agreement; indeed, the Employment Agreement explicitly states just the opposite. (See Wherry, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1249-1250.)

Slip op., at 33.  The Court concluded its analysis by rejecting an argument that an Employee Handbook referencing an arbitration policy that would be signed by employees could create an enforceable arbitration agreement.

The arbitration arms race continues...

Peremptory challenges by different plaintiffs in two PAGA suits held valid in Pickett v. Superior Court

In my experience, there is a good deal of confusion about what is meant by the "one challenge per side" rule governing peremptory challenges to assigned trial judges under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.  In Pickett v. Superior Court (February 22, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) reduced at least some of that confusion, upholding the right of the plaintiff in a second, related action to exercise a peremptory challenge after the plaintiff in the earlier-filed action had already done so.

Pickett’s action that included a Private Attorney General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (PAGA) claim.  It was deemed related to a prior-filed PAGA action brought by Eugina Bright, against the same defendant, 99¢ Only Stores, on similar allegations.  The two action sought somewhat different remdies.  Pickett’s action was reassigned to the all-purpose judge in the prior-filed action, but not consolidated with that first action.  Pickett timely filed a peremptory challenge to the trial judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.

The trial court struck the challenge as improper.  It determined that Pickett’s action was identical to and a continuation of the action brought by Bright, who had already used her one peremptory challenge in the matter after remand following a successful appeal.  The Court of Appeal concluded that under section 170.6 and the authorities applying it, Pickett’s action is not a continuation of Bright’s action, nor is Pickett on the same “side” as Bright in one action, and therefore Pickett’s peremptory challenge should have been accepted.

An interesting extra detail is that in the Notice of Related Cases, Pickett described her claims as "identical" to Bright's.  Despite that characterization, one that the defendant sought to turn to its advantage, the Court of Appeal determined that the right to exercise a peremptory challenge should be determined by the nature of the cases and identity of the parties, not the characterization by a party in a Notice of Related Cases.

Supreme Court activity for the week of February 13, 2012

With a lot of catching up to do, I'm starting easy.  The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on February 15, 2012.  Notable results include:

• On a petition for review, review was granted in In re Cipro Cases I & II.  This case is one to follow if you practice in the area of anti-competitive behavior.  There's a big dash of pre-emption thrown in, along with some procedural questions about a trial court's obligation to rule on evidentiary objections at summary judgment.
• On a petition for review, review and depublication were denied in Collins v. eMachines, discussed on this blog here. The Court of Appeal held that “injury in fact” can be satisfied by alleging as damages the difference between the actual purchase price and the fair market value of a defective product. 

I was right: Bridgeford v. Pacific Health stabs Alvarez v. May Dept. Stores Co. in the heart, stuffs garlic in its mouth

I hate Alvarez v. May Dept. Stores Co., 143 Cal. App. 4th 1223 (2006).  My supplemental briefing in that case was uncannily prescient of parts of Taylor v. Sturgell, 128 S.Ct. 2161 (2008).  But did the Court of Appeal rule in my favor.  Nooooo.  Did the U.S. Supreme Court take my case to correct that gross misinterpretation of collateral estoppel rules in uncertified class actions?  Nooooo.  But along comes Bridgeford v. Pacific Health (January 18, 2012), in which the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) did what I so wanted to do.  They stabbed Alvarez dead, dead, dead.

Here are the money quotes:

California courts have held or suggested that the denial of class certification can establish collateral estoppel against absent putative class members on issues that were actually decided in connection with the denial. (Alvarez v. May Dept. Stores Co. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1236; Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1202-1203 (Bufil); see also Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1510-1513 & fn. 8 (Johnson) [assuming the point while expressing reservations].) Alvarez stated that the principles of collateral estoppel ensure that the absent putative class members' interests were adequately represented in the prior proceeding. (Alvarez, supra, at p. 1236.) We conclude to the contrary that if no class was certified by the court in the prior proceeding, the interests of absent putative class members were not represented in the prior proceeding and the requirements for collateral estoppel cannot be established, as we shall explain.

Slip op., at 11.  The Court then explained:

The United States Supreme Court, however, in Smith v. Bayer Corporation, supra, 131 S.Ct. 2368, recently resolved the issue. Applying common law principles of issue preclusion, the high court held that unnamed putative class members cannot be bound by issue preclusion if the class was never certified in the prior proceeding. (Id. at pp. 2380-2381.) Smith v. Bayer Corporation stated, “[n]either a proposed class action nor a rejected class action may bind nonparties” (id. at p. 2380), and, “[t]he great weight of scholarly authority . . . agrees that an uncertified class action cannot bind proposed class members.” (Id. at p. 2381, fn. 11.) The high court explained that unnamed putative class members as nonparties can be bound by issue preclusion only if there was a properly certified class because only in those circumstances can the court in the later proceeding conclude that their interests were adequately represented in the prior proceeding. (Id. at pp. 2379-2381 & fn. 11.)

We find the reasoning in Smith v. Bayer Corporation, supra, 131 S.Ct. 2368, persuasive and conclude, under California law, that the denial of class certification cannot establish collateral estoppel against unnamed putative class members on any issue because unnamed putative class members were neither parties to the prior proceeding nor represented by a party to the prior proceeding so as to be considered in privity with such a party for purposes of collateral estoppel.

Slip op., at 12-13.

Back to your crypt for all eternity, foul spawn of darkness.

Spiro Moss is helping to rebuild America, one or two jobs at a time

Spiro Moss LLP is currently looking to hire one experienced attorney and one paralegal.  Read more about these opportunities here.

Alvarez v. Brookstone Company, Inc. holds that Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. applies retrospectively

Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., 51 Cal. 4th 524 (2011) (Pineda) held that the collection of ZIP codes as part of a credit card transaction is conduct that violates Civil Code section 1747.08.  In Alvarez v. Brookstone Company, Inc. (pub. ord. January 18, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) considered whether Pineda applied retrospectively to conduct occurring prior to that decision.  The Court had little difficulty concluding that the holding of Pineda applied retrospectively:

Pineda expressly concluded: "[T]he only reasonable interpretation of section 1747.08 is that personal identification information includes a cardholder's ZIP code." (Pineda, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 534, italics added.) Therefore, despite Brookstone's attempts to show the contrary, the California Supreme Court held that its interpretation of section 1747.08 was the only reasonable interpretation of that statute. Pineda further concluded section 1747.08 "provides constitutionally adequate notice of proscribed conduct." (Id. at p. 536.) We reject Brookstone's due process argument that it did not have fair notice or warning of section 1747.08's prohibition against requesting and recording the ZIP codes of customers during credit card transactions.

Slip op., at 7.

Dear Congress: Get your grubby paws off the internet - I'm looking at you, SOPA and PIPA

In case my opinion isn't entirely clear, SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) are junk.  The laws display a catastrophic ignorance about how the Internet actually works, are so poorly written as to invite abuse, will most certainly be abused (based on how the MPAA and RIAA have conducted themselves in the past), and will move the United States uncomfortably down the road towards a fragmented, censored Internet.

If you aren't all that technical and want an idea of what's wrong with these laws, reddit has a good post on the topic.

Court revives claims of failure to disclose and active concealment of defects from computer purchasers

Reporting on this case pains me greatly.  I should be pleased to report on a CLRA and UCL decision that revives consumer claims.  But all I feel is pain.  Let me explain by quoting from the case.  The very first sentence says, "In this class action alleging a failure to disclose a computer defect involving a microchip that controlled floppy disk data transmission, plaintiffs Tammy Collins and Rudolph Roma appeal from a judgment on the pleadings."  Huh?  Floppy disk data transmission.  Rings a bell.  Nope, can't place it.  Must be some highfalutin, newfangled technology.  I recognize "data."  Anyhow, in Collins v. eMachines, Inc. (pub. ord. December 21, 2011), the Court reviewed a trial court order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

It was alleged that defendant failed to disclose and actively concealed the disk controller defect from potential purchasers. Despite knowing of the defect and knowing that the defect could result in critical data corruption, executives of eMachines directed the company to continue to sell the defective computers after October 31, 1999. eMachines actively concealed the existence of the defect from purchasers by, among other practices specified in the FAC, continuing to issue the warranty knowing the computers had the defect, and engaging in misleading “customer service” practices that concealed the defect in online “customer support” guides, in customer service diagnoses of computer problems, and at call centers.  The case was stayed for four years while cases in other states moved forward.

Turning first to the CLRA, the Court restated the LiMandri circumstances giving rise to actionable deceit.  The Court recognized the FAC as alleging factor (2), when the defendant has exclusive knowledge of material facts not known or reasonably accessible to the plaintiff, and factor (3), when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff.  The Court then agreed that a "reasonable" consumer would certainly find data corruption to be material information in connection with a computer.

Next, the Court distinguished Daugherty, observing that, in Daugherty, the only represetation made was the warranty, and the vehicles performed adequately as warranted.  The Court was similarly dismissive of Bardin, in which it was alleged that exhaust manifolds were likely to fail after the warranty period.  The Court explained that the manifolds in Bardin worked they way they were supposed to under the warranty.  Contrasting the circumstances, the Court said, "Because a floppy disk, at the time of the complaint, was integral to the storage, access, and transport of accurate computer data, the floppy disk was central to the function of a computer as a computer. The exhaust manifolds at issue in Bardin, by contrast, were just blowing smoke."  Slip op., at 12.  That's funny.  You see, the exhaust manifold vents combustion byproducts...

Regarding the UCL, the Court relied on its discussion about Daugherty and Bardin to conclude that a claim under the UCL was easily stated as well.  The Court agreed that consumers certainly had an expectation about data integrity when they purchased the affected computers.

After also concluding that the allegations supported a claim for common law fraud, the Court concluded that legal remedies were adequate, rendering an unjust enrichment claim unnecessary.

I should also tag this one with "Dinosaurs," given the discussion of floppy disk drives.  That reminds me that I should tell you about the time I saved data on a bent floppy disk drive by removing the casing and putting the raw disk in a disk drive.  The year was 1985.  Madonna, Huey Lewis, Duran Duran and Wham! were dominating the charts...

[extended period of blank stares]

...and that's how I saved all that data!

Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular confirms what we already suspected regarding reporting time pay and split shift wages

While this case ostensibly addresses issues of first impression in California, like many such decisions it was only a matter of time.  In Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular (December 21, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Two) examined claims for reporting time pay and split shift premiums.  The case was brought by former employees of AirTouch. The plaintiffs worked mostly as retail sales representatives or customer service representatives at AirTouch stores and kiosks.  Plaintiffs alleged that AirTouch did not properly pay its nonexempt employees for attending mandatory store meetings.

On the reporting time claim, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to receive "reporting time pay" for attending meetings at work, because all the meetings were scheduled and they worked at least half the scheduled time.  This issue stems from the argument that reporting time pay should be based on a two-hour minimum.  Thus, goes the argument, if you are called into a meeting one day for two hours, you should get two hours of pay, even if the meeting last 90 minutes.  This theory is dead.  If a meeting is scheduled, and the meeting lasts at least half the scheduled time, that is good enough.

On the split shift differential claim, the Court concluded, consistent with at least one treatise to examine the issue, that the split shift differential is intended only to protect the minimum wage law.  Thus, if your pay for the hours worked is enough to satisfy the split shift premium of one extra hour of pay at minimum wage, then no further pay need be supplied.

On the plus side, the Court explicitly held that an award of attorney's fees was improper, since both reporting time pay and split shift pay were governed by Labor Code section 1194, governing payment of minimum wages.  Since the one-way fee shifting statute controls the claims, defendant could not recover fees.  Phew.