Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00177/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00177-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES BRADY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP,

Defendant.

Case No. 08-cv-00177-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION FOR CLASS 

CERTIFICATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 281, 285, 301

On August 28, 2015, the Court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion. The Court GRANTS plaintiffs' 

request for leave to file a statement of recent decision.

DISCUSSION

Now before the Court is plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. In an order filed 

March 23, 2010, this Court originally certified a class of Deloitte's unlicensed accountants. 

However, in light of the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 

642 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011), this Court granted Deloitte's subsequent motion to decertify in an 

order filed March 27, 2012. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court's decertification order in a 

memorandum disposition filed October 9, 2014. Brady v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 587 Fed. Appx. 

363 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs now seek to certify a narrowed class of unlicensed accountants, and 

they contend that certification is supported by authority that post-dates the Court's decertification 

order, as well as new evidence that was not before the Court in 2012.

Case 3:08-cv-00177-SI Document 302 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class: 

[A]ll persons employed by Defendant in California as exempt employees in 

Defendant’s Audit line of service who worked as a First and/or Second Year Staff 

(positions referred to by Defendant at various times as “Audit Assistant” and 

“Audit Senior Assistant”) at any time within four years of the filing of this 

complaint to the conclusion of this action but who were not licensed by the State of 

California in the practice of accounting and were not paid overtime for hours 

worked in excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.

Defendant claims that these unlicensed accountants are exempt under the professional and 

administrative exemptions set forth in California Wage Order No. 4-2001. Plaintiffs contend that 

the issues of whether the proposed class members are properly classified as exempt can be 

litigated on a class wide basis. While defendant has the burden of proof on the merits of its 

affirmative defenses, plaintiffs have the burden of proof in regard to satisfying Rule 23. Marlo v. 

UPS, 639 F.3d 642, 647 (9th Cir. 2011) (in motion for decertification, although employer has the 

burden of proof regarding applicability of wage and hour exemption, the plaintiff “bears the 

burden of demonstrating that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) are met”)).

After careful consideration of the parties' arguments and the new evidence submitted by 

plaintiffs, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that common issues 

predominate. The Court agrees with plaintiffs that whether Deloitte’s requirements for class 

member positions satisfy the specialized knowledge requirement of the learned professions prong 

of the professional exemption can be litigated on a class-wide basis. However, for the same 

reasons articulated in the decertification order, plaintiffs have not shown that the balance of the 

professional exemption analysis is amenable to common proof. To the extent that the factfinder is 

required to analyze the job duties and work performed by class members to determine whether 

they are apprentices and/or trainees, the record before the Court shows, as it did when the Court 

granted defendant's motion for decertification, that there is wide variation in the job duties and 

work experiences of class members. 

Case 3:08-cv-00177-SI Document 302 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

With regard to the administrative exemption, plaintiffs cite, inter alia, the same Deloitte 

policies, professional standards and statutes that the Court addressed in the decertification order. 

Plaintiffs assert that these policies, standards and statutes preclude class members from engaging 

in work that is qualitatively administrative. However, while those policies and rules prevent class 

members from performing specific tasks such as signing engagement letters, they do not 

necessarily preclude class members from engaging in work that is "directly related to management 

policies or general business operations of his/her employer" or its customers. Wage Order 4-2001, 

1(A)(2)(a)(i). Plaintiffs also assert, citing these same policies and rules as well as Harris v. 

Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 170, 182 (2011), that all class members are prevented from 

performing administrative work because they do not "advise" management. However, Harris did 

not hold that "advising" management was necessary for the administrative exemption to apply. 

See id. (stating "administrative operations include work done by 'white collar' employees engaged 

in servicing a business. Such servicing may include, as potentially relevant here, advising 

management, planning, negotiating, and representing the company.") (emphasis added). Finally, 

the evidence before the Court shows that class members are subject to differing degrees of 

supervision and exercise varying degrees of discretion and independent judgment, factors that are 

relevant to both exemptions.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiffs' motion for class 

certification. In light of the disposition of the motion, the Court finds it unnecessary to rule on 

defendant's motion to strike the Ueltzen declaration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00177-SI Document 302 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 3