Cacho v. Eurostar
Defendant had facially non-compliant meal & rest break policies. The court concluded that the class cannot be certified because Plaintiff did not sufficiently illustrate a uniform policy of missed meal breaks. Individual questions predominated as to whether the plaintiff missed rest and meal breaks.
In Re Williams Sonoma
A Kentucky resident brought a consumer class action against Williams Sonoma. However, Kentucky does not provide a legal platform for consumer class actions. Trial court allowed Plaintiff’s Counsel to conduct discovery to identify a California resident to serve as class representative. Defendants took a writ which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal granted. Court of appeal held that pre-certification discovery of the identity of class members is not permitted here, given Defendant’s privacy interests. As a result, without discovery to identify who the class representative might be, the case stalls.
Safeway Wage & Hour Cases
An appeal from a rare jury trial of a class action case regarding misclassification of assistant managers who were listed as exempt presumptively as a ploy to avoid protections from wage and hour guidelines. Jury found in favor of employer, and found that assistant managers were correctly classified as exempt. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the Court gave improper instruction to the jury. Court of Appeal clarifies the rules regarding exempt work, but ultimately affirms the verdict.
Murphy v. SFBSC Management
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s approval of a settlement notice process and a class action settlement, negotiated without a certified class, in a case arising out of a dispute under federal and California labor law regarding whether exotic dancers working at various nightclubs in San Francisco were misclassified as independent contractors rather than being treated as employees.