N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ATHERINE E. AVILEZ, a s a n individual a

nd on be h a lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. PINKER TON GOVER

NM ENT SER VIC ES, INC ., a

c orporation, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-55154

D.C . No. 8:11-c v-00493-DOC -R Z
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, C HR ISTEN, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. In this a c tion ra ising c la im s unde r the C a lifornia m e a l bre ak sta tute , C a lifornia La bor C ode § 226.7, Pinke rton Gove rnm e nt Se rvic e s , Inc . a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s orde r granting C athe rine Avile z ’ s m otion to c e rtify va rious c la sse s 

# F IL ED
M AR 09 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.of c urre nt a

nd form e r Pinke rton e m

p loy e e s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1292(e ) and Fe de ra l R

u l e of C ivil Proc e dure 23(f). W e va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s orde r and re m and for e ntry of a re vise d c la s s c e rtific ation orde r. 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

striking Pinkerton’ s e xpe rt
surve y and supporting de c la

ra tions. Pinkerton fa ile d

to tim e ly ide ntify its e xpe rt, the s urve y

instrum e nt, a

nd the ide ntitie s a

n d c onta c t inform ation for its e m ploy e e de c la rants. Fe d . R . C iv. P. 26(a )(1)(A). 2. Pinke rton wa i ve d its R u le s Ena bling Ac t a

rgum e nt by

not ra ising it in opposition to the

m o tion for c la ss c e rtific ation. 3. The distric t c ourt a b use d its disc re tion to the e x te n t it c e rtifie d c la sse s a nd subc la sse s tha

t inc lude e m

ploy e e s who signe d c la ss a c tion wa ive rs. Avile z ’ s
arbitration a gre e m e n t

doe s not c onta in a

c l a ss a c t ion wa ive r and c ounse l did not dispute tha

t those who signe d suc h wa ive rs ha ve pote ntia l de fe nse s tha

t Avile z would be una

ble to a rgue on the ir be ha lf. To the e xte n t the c la sse s a nd subc la sse s inc l ude individuals who signe d c la s s a c tion wa ive rs, Avile z is not a n a de quate
re pre se ntative , Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 23(a )(4), and he r c la im la c ks ty pic a lity , Fe d . R . C iv. P. 23(a )(3). 4. If individua ls who signe d c la ss a c tion wa ive rs a re e xc lude d

from the “ M e a l B re ak” an d “ W a ge State m e n t” subc la sse s , the n the se subc la sse s, a long with the 2“No-Signe d-W a ive r” subc la ss, would sa tisfy Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure 23(a )(1)–(4). W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r the se subc la sse s, a s m odifie d, would
satisfy the pre dom ina

nc e re quire m e nt of R

ule 23(b)(3). On re m a

nd, the distric t
c ourt sha ll c e rtify

a c la s s unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 23(c )(4) on the issue whe the r the re e xists a prim a fa c ie c a se for lia

bility . If a

prim a fa c ie c a se
e xists, the distric t c ourt m ay

proc e e d to e nte rta in Pinke rton’ s a ffirm ative de fe nse s
and c ull the c la ss a c c ordingly
. 5. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

granting c l a ss c e rtific ation on Avile z ’ s unfa ir busine ss pra c tic e s c la im , whic h is de rivative of he r othe r c la im s. 6. B e c a

use the M e a l B re ak a

nd W a ge State m e nt subc la sse s inc lude e m ploy e e s who signe d c la ss a c t ion wa i ve rs, the distric t c ourt’ s c l a ss c e rtific at ion orde r is
va c ate d. On re m an d, the distric t c ourt sha l l e nte r a ne w c e rtific at ion orde r
c onsiste n t with this de c ision. 7. Ea c h pa

rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

3