My Photo

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    September 2016

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30  

    « New Appellate Information Required | Main | Starbucks Writ Petitions Denied »



    The case is better for employers than you let on. In LASC, class actions are routinely deemed non-complex and assigned to judges with little class action experience. Some of them (e.g., George Wu) have openly commented that all wage hour class action merit certification, apparently from a misreading of Sav-On. Being able to put a case in front of them that explicitly reasoned why an exempt/non-exempt case may not be appropriate for certification makes it more likely they will be persuaded to deny cert. I agree with your first point, though. A certification or denial where a trial court has at least purported to consider the correct standards and reached a conclusion is almost unreviewable. I leave it to you whether it is sensible public policy to have multi-million dollar decisions decided completely inconsistently based upon the personal proclivities of the trial judge.

    michael walsh

    Certainly Dunbar is a useful case for employers, especially with respect to the overtime cases. That is obvious. But a few defense firms have heralded this as the beginning of the end of class certification in these cases, and we wanted to point out not only that it is not that (any more than Sav-On was the end of all oppositions and decertifications), but that even this opinion is a mixed bag. While we won't be citing Dunbar in support of many certification motions, we certainly will be citing it in support of motions to compel.

    Paul A

    Loved the write up about this on the Sheppard Mullin site you link to. They claim this is the "new trend." One case is a trend? They say so. They add that it "could signal a trend" toward class certification being denied in ALL wage and hour claims, not just the detailed specifics of misclassification claims, but that "it continues to be prudent" for employers to follow state and federal law. Implicit in that advice is the reason why these class actions became a trend in the first place. If there isn't 100% HELL TO PAY when these cheaters get nailed, most employers and their lawyers recognize that it isn't prudent to follow the law!!!!!

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    Become a Fan

    AddThis Social Bookmark Button