Read Robert Drexler's Article "The Fuzzy Line Between Merits and Class Certification Analyses"
An often-stated principle in class certification law is that the class certification motion is not a motion on the merits; the merits of the case are distinct from the analysis of the class certification requirements. However, in practice, the line between a class certification and merits is blurred. Two recent California Court of Appeal cases illustrate this point.
In Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1524 (2009), the employee drivers filed a lawsuit challenging Diva’s policy of paying its drivers an hourly rate for assigned trips but failing to pay for on-call time between assignments, referred to as “gap” time. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify two overlapping subclasses, one based on Diva’s alleged failure to pay earned overtime and straight time and a second targeting Diva’s failure to provide mandatory rest breaks. The denial focused on the potential difficulty of assessing the validity of Diva’s compensation policy in light of variations in how drivers spend their gap time. Diva had submitted numerous employee declarations stating that drivers typically used unpaid gap time for their own purposes such as working out at a gym, napping or eating at home or running personal errands. The trial court’s order denying certification, however, suggested that if plaintiffs’ claims are valid, class treatment of those claims is appropriate, but stated that the court must first determine if Diva’s practices are improper and, if so, which drivers fit into the appropriate class.
Read the remainder of Robert's article as published in the January KPA Newsletter here.
