The answer is "yes," Dynamex does apply retroactively on the interpretation of "suffer or permit to work"

As opinions go these days, the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (Jan. 14, 2021) is a short one, at about 16 pages of actual text. It is also a unanimous opinion. The Ninth Circuit asked the Supreme Court to answer whether the Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) applies retroactively. The California Supreme Court concluded that it was retroactive in application:

In concluding that the standard set forth in Dynamex applies retroactively — that is, to all cases not yet final as of the date our decision in Dynamex became final — we rely primarily on the fact that Dynamex addressed an issue of first impression. It did not change a settled rule on which the parties below had relied. No decision of this court prior to Dynamex had determined how the “suffer or permit to work” definition in California’s wage orders should be applied in distinguishing employees from independent contractors. Particularly because we had not previously issued a definitive ruling on the issue addressed in Dynamex, we see no reason to depart from the general rule that judicial decisions are given retroactive effect.

Slip op., at 2. Read the decision if you want to know all about the general rule of retroactive effect and issues of first impression.

Episode 28 of the Class Re-Action podcast is now available

Hot off the presses, Episode 28 of the Class Re-Action podcast is here…for all your insomnia needs.

Collateral estoppel does not preclude a member of a decertified class from later seeking to certify an identical class

This is interesting. I draw your attention to Williams v. U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. (June 8, 2020), in which the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Four) concluded that collateral estoppel does not bar an absent member in a putative class that was initially certified, but later decertified, from subsequently pursuing an identical class action. The Court held that the reasoning of Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 312–316 (2011) and Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp., 202 Cal. App. 4th 1034, 1041–1044 (2012) applied equally to this variation.

A quick note on Gonzalez v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc.

In Gonzalez v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc. (October 10, 2019), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) reversed and remanded on an appeal from the denial of class certification. Most of the opinion is about the impact of Dynamex, which adopted the “ABC test” after the trial court denied certification. There is some important analysis about what claims are encompassed by the “ABC test,” and the retroactive application. But I’m posting now just to draw attention to a sliver of discussion at the end of the opinion regarding typicality:

Also, SGT maintains that Gonzales’ claims are atypical because, “unlike other class members, [he] never leased a taxi during the class period.” But the class allegations are not premised on having “leased” a vehicle. Rather, Gonzales seeks more generally to certify a class of plaintiffs who “were engaged by [SGT] to drive passengers for hire,” and who “drove” for SGT during the class period, i.e., all “drivers employed by, or formerly employed by [SGT] . . . [during the class period], who were or are classified as independent contractors.” The common allegations of harm suffered by Gonzales and other drivers is that all were misclassified as independent contractors. As such, they were required at their own expense to install equipment and provide tools to access SGT’s dispatch system, and to obtain insurance and perform maintenance, all expenses Gonzales contends should properly be borne by their employer and were denied the benefits of wage order protections.

On remand, SGT must show that the variations in class members’ factual situations are sufficiently wide to defeat class certification. For instance, regardless of a driver’s status as lessee or owner/operator, drivers were charged weekly “lease” fees to perform services under the SGT umbrella. If and to the extent it is important that a driver owned rather than leased a vehicle—which may cause a variation in weekly “lease” rates, insurance, equipment installation fees, or some other business expense—such a difference would likely be a function of the damages to which an individual driver was entitled. That a calculation of individual damages will, at some point, be required does not foreclose the possibility of taking common evidence on the issue of misclassification questions. (Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7 Cal.3d 232, 238.) The overarching inquiry is whether class members were misclassified during the class period. If so, as discussed in the overlapping analysis of commonality above, the class members are entitled to a determination as to whether SGT misclassified them as independent contractors. The fact that individual members of the class have different damages does not preclude class certification. (Sav–On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 329–330.)

The trial court also alluded to the fact that Gonzales could not demonstrate typicality for the entire class because he never drove LAX or school runs. However, as we have noted, typicality does not require that a class representative have suffered injuries identical to those of other class members. (Martinez v. Joe’s Crab Shack Holdings, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 375.) Accordingly, the trial court must reevaluate whether the requirements for typicality are satisfied, and whether, given time limitations, the complaint may be amended to add an additional representative plaintiff.

Slip op., at 37-38. This discussion pushes back against a common argument used to try and “thin” a class action down to a subset of the members alleged to be a part of the class. The argument is frequently along the lines of “the plaintiff didn’t work in all of the job positions,” or “the plaintiff didn’t work at all of the locations.” This discussion doesn’t entirely reject such arguments, but it certainly undermines them substantially with a fact pattern that is not particularly unique in wage and hour class actions.

Another Court of Appeal holds that PAGA claims cannot be split and sent partially to arbitration

Right now, Lawson v. ZB, N.A., review granted Mar. 21, 2018, S246711, is making its way through the California Supreme Court. The case asks whether a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (‘PAGA”) seeking recovery of individualized lost wages as civil penalties under Labor Code § 558 fall within the preemptive scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). Lawson was argued on June 5, 2019. Supplemental briefing was requested and received, and the matter was deemed submitted on June 27, 2019. That means a decision is imminent.

Today, in Mejia v. Merchants Building Maintenance, LLC (August 13, 2019), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) another Court of Appeal came down on the side of the Courts of Appeal that have concluded that PAGA claims cannot be split so as to direct a portion to arbitration:

We agree with the conclusion of the Lawson and Zakaryan courts on this question, and conclude that a single PAGA claim seeking to recover section 558 civil penalties may not be "split" between that portion of the claim seeking an "amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages" and that portion of the claim seeking the $50 or $100 per-violation, per-pay-period assessment imposed for each wage violation. The result is that an employee bringing a PAGA claim to recover the civil penalties identified in section 558 may not be compelled to arbitrate that portion of her PAGA claim that seeks an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages pursuant to that statute, while the rest of the claim that seeks the $50 or $100 per-pay-period per violation portion of the penalty remains in a judicial forum. We therefore affirm the trial court's order denying the MDM defendants' motion to compel arbitration in this case

Slip op., at 6.

As for reading tea leaves, the Lawson matter (perhaps to be known as the ZB matter due to a change in the name of the case), as noted above, requested supplemental briefing on this question:

If this court concludes Labor Code section 558's "amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages" is not a "civil penalty" recoverable under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.), should the trial court be ordered to deny ZB's motion to compel arbitration?

Lawson docket. That question suggests that at least someone on the Supreme Court is thinking about whether an aggrieved employee can recover unpaid wages at all through Labor Code § 558. There’s a curve for you.

Interesting meal and rest break questions certified by Ninth Circuit to the California Supreme Court

This is interesting. On August 1, 2019, the Ninth Circuit certified a pair of questions to the California Supreme Court in Cole v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. (No. 17-55606) (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2019). Before we get ahead of ourselves, the California Supreme Court still needs to agree to take up the certified questions. They do so at an exceedingly high rate, but it isn’t a done deal…yet. So, what about those questions? The questions posed are as follows:

1.Does the absence of a formal policy regarding meal and rest breaks violate California law?

2.Does an employer’s failure to keep records for meal and rest breaks taken by its employees create a rebuttable presumption that the meal and rest breaks were not provided?

Slip op., at 4. The case arises in the context of the operation of truck drivers working for a shipping company. The discussion of the reason for the certification clarifies where the Ninth Circuit seeks guidance:

The California Supreme Court did not directly address in Brinker whether the absence of a policy providing for meal and rest breaks constitutes a violation of California labor law. However, in Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 325 P.3d 916,933 n.28 (Cal. 2014), the California Supreme Court observed that “[i]n regard to other wage and hour claims, some courts have held that the absence of a uniform policy supports [class] certification if such a policy is required by law. We express no opinion on this question.” (emphasis in the original).

Slip op., at 11. After noting Benton and Bradley, the Court also observed the concurring comment in Brinker:

In Brinker, Justice Werdegar noted that “[i]f an employer’s records show no meal period for a given shift over five hours, a rebuttable presumption arises that the employee was not relieved of duty and no meal period was provided.” 273 P.3d at 545 (Werdegar, J., concurring).

Slip op. at 12.

If the California Supreme Court takes up the questions, I will be happy to handle action on the outcome for a 5% vig. Kidding. 10%. Still kidding.

The California Supreme Court lays down the law on "ascertainability" in Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc.

I’m testing out opening sentences. The first candidate is: “The objective import of Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (July 29, 2019) is easy to ascertain.” You can see how that’s an option. It includes “objective,” as in the class definition must state the class with objective characteristics. And it drops in “ascertain,” as in this is a decision about the ascertainability requisite for certification. I like it. No second option for you.

Noel is a putative class action brought on behalf of retail purchasers of an inflatable outdoor pool sold in packaging that was allegedly misleading about the pool’s characteristics. The trial court denied the representative plaintiff’s motion for class certification on the basis that the plaintiff did not supply evidence showing how class members might be individually identified when the time came to do so. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court, reasoning that such evidence was necessary to ensure that proper notice would be given to the class. The Supreme Court said, “Nah, brah.”

The Supreme Court reviewed the history of the “ascertainability” requisite. The first view of the requisite focuses on the nature of the definition of the class:

One view of ascertainability concentrates on the proposed class definition itself. This viewwas applied in Bartold v. Glendale Federal Bank (2000) 81Cal.App.4th 816 (Bartold), superseded by statute on another point as stated in Markowitz v. Fidelity Nat. Title Co. (2006) 142Cal.App.4th 508, 524. The Bartold court explained that “[a] class is ascertainable if it identifies a group of unnamed plaintiffs by describing a set of common characteristics sufficient to allow a member of that group to identify himself or herself as having a right to recover based on the description.” (81 Cal.App.4th at p.828.) This basic view of ascertainability has been reiterated by numerous other Courts of Appeal, including the courts in Estrada, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at page 14 and Aguirre, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at pages 1299 to 1300. (See also Aguirre, at p. 1300 [listing cases].) A similar formulation regards a class as ascertainable when it is defined “in terms of objective characteristics and common transactional facts” that make “the ultimate identification of class members possible when that identification becomes necessary.” (Hicks, supra, 89Cal.App.4that p.915.)

Slip op., at 21. The second formulation of the requisite was summarized as follows:

The second basic view of ascertainability entails a more exacting inquiry. One such articulationregards the ascertainabilityrequirementas calling for an examination into“(1) the class definition, (2) the size of the class and (3) the means of identifying class members.” (Miller v. Woods (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 862, 873 (Miller); see also Noel, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at p. 1324, Sotelo, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 648; Reyes v. Board of Supervisors (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1263, 1274.) Consistent with this view, it has been said that “[c]lass members are ‘ascertainable’ where they may be readily identified without unreasonable expense or time by reference to official records.” (Rose v. City of Hayward (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 926, 932 (Rose).) On its face, the quoted language from Rose could be understood as specifying a sufficient, as opposed to a necessary, basis for finding an ascertainable class within the Miller framework. But some courts, drawing from Rose’s focus on the mechanics of identifying class members, have gone further and required a class plaintiff to make a specific factual or evidentiary showing in order to show an ascertainable class.

Slip op., at 21-22. The Court then looked at the similar divide in the federal system, focusing extensively on the Seventh Circuit’s analysis of the requisite in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015). After that extensive review of competing approaches, the Supreme Court concluded that the process protection provided by an objective and clear class definition was more significant to the ascertainability requirement than the goal of notice to each class member. From that conclusion a clear rule followed:

As a rule, a representative plaintiff in a class action need not introduce evidence establishing how notice of the action will be communicated to individual class members in order to show an ascertainable class.

Slip op., at 38. The Court expressly disapproved of strict reliance upon Rose as stating the requirement for an ascertainability showing. Slip op., at 41, n. 15.

The Court observed that a trial court could consider how notice will be provided to a class as a separate inquiry into, e.g., manageability. Slip op., at 42. It emphasized, however, that notice was not an aspect of the ascertainability showing. The decision of the Court was unanimous.

Christopher Wimmer and Peter Roldan of Emergent Legal and Leslie Brueckner and Karla Gilbride of Public Justice represented the successful Plaintiff and Appellant.

Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. should be decided soon, addressing whether class members must be identifiable

In what might be a significant decision, Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. was argued to the California Supreme Court on May 8, 2019. The issue presented for review is as follows: “Must a plaintiff seeking class certification under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 or the Consumer Legal Remedies Act demonstrate that records exist permitting the identification of class members?” While California appeared to have settled this question decisively many decades ago, the question arose when the First Appellate District (Division Four) opined that such identification was required. A decision may issue any time in the next couple of weeks. This is not likely to be an issue for wage and hour cases — where employer records are basically always available as a source of identification information — but is may be an issue in consumer class actions, where specific class members identification may not be possible.

It's still possible to waive enforcement of arbitration agreements according to Nunez v. Nevell Group, Inc.

Other than the minor surprise I now experience when any motion to compel arbitration is denied, such agreements having achieved a status as super-contracts with super powers, the decision in Nunez v. Nevell Group, Inc. (pub. ord. May 28, 2019) isn’t too surprising. In Nunez, the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration on the basis of waiver, delay, and prejudice.

The Court covers two topics in its discussion of waiver that might be of use to others. First, the Court examines the idea of waiver generally. Second, the Court examines the “clear and unmistakable” standard that asks whether a CBA clearly and unmistakably waives the right to a judicial forum for the particular type of claim in question. Keep in mind that, as the Court here observed, federal and California state courts may reach slightly different conclusions regarding application of the “clear and unmistakable” waiver standard, since California Courts are not bound by federal court decisions on the subject.

FAA section 1 held to exempt some California truck drivers from FAA coverage in Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Co.

The arbitration battle lines have somewhat diminished in their spectacular scope, but that doesn’t mean the war is entirely over. Case in point: in Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Co. (certified for publication March 22, 2019), the Court of Appeal (Fifth Appellate District) affirmed a trial court ruling that found beverage company deliver drivers to be exempt from Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §1 et seq., the “FAA”) by operation of the exemption in Section 1 for what the Supreme Court has denominated “transportation workers.”

The case is not too long of a read, but it nevertheless does a thorough job of reviewing decisions addressing the Section 1 exemption (see pages 6-13 for the state of affairs).

There is also a quick reminder in the discussion about waiver of arguments not raised in the Opening Brief.

Kenneth H. Yoon, Stephanie E. Yasuda, and Brian G. Lee of Yoon Law and Douglas Han, Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, and Daniel J. Par of Justice Law Corporation represented the prevailing plaintiff on appeal.