N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NASHONNA C OLEM AN, a n individual, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JENNY C R

AIG, INC . , a De la

ware c orporation, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-55821 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-01301-B ASDHB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M ic ha e l M . Ane llo, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 6, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, TYM KOVIC H ** , a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Na shonna C ole m an file d a

c la ss a c tion la

w s uit a ga inst Je nny

C ra i g, Inc ., he r form e r e m

p loy e r. In support of her m otion for c la s s c e rtific ation, C ole m an a lle ge d that Je nny C ra ig ha d a

c om m on polic y

of forc ing its hourly

e m ploy e e s to m iss 

# FIL ED APR 20 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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. ** The Honora

ble Tim othy

M . Ty m kovic h , C hie f C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.m e a l bre aks or ta ke short or la

te m e a l bre aks, in viola

tion of C a lifornia La

bor C ode se c t ions 226.7 a

nd 512. C ole m an a lso a lle ge d tha t Je nny C ra ig’ s pa

yroll sy ste m only pa id the re quire d wa g e pre m ium whe n a n e m ploy e e ’ s tim e -c ard showe d a n e ntire l y m isse d m e a l bre ak, but did not pa y a pre m ium whe n the tim e -c a

rd showe d a short or la

te m e a l bre ak. Se e C a l. La b. C o de . § 226.7(c ). The distric t c ourt found tha t the la w suit did not m

e e t the c o m m ona l ity re quire m e nt for c la ss c e rtific ation, a nd de nie d the m otion. Se e Fe d . R . C iv. Pro. 23(a )(2). The c ourt found tha t Je nny C ra ig did not ha

ve a c om m on polic y

of forc ing e m

ploy e e s to m iss m e a l bre aks or ta ke short or la

te m e a l bre a

ks. The c ourt a lso found tha

t Je nny C ra i g did not ha

ve a c om m on polic y of not pa

y ing wa ge pre m ium s for short or la

te m e a l bre aks. C ole m an file d a

m otion for re c onside ration. Them otion a rgue d tha t c om m ona lity ha d be e n shown by

Je nny C ra ig’ s fa ilure to c re ate and disse m inate a polic y for pa y ing wa ge pre m ium s for short or la te m e a l bre aks. The distric t c ourt de nie d the m otion for re c onside ration. C ole m an now a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of c la ss c e rtific ation a nd the de nia l of the m otion for re c o n side ration, sole ly on the issue of whe the r Je nny C ra ig’ s wa ge pre m ium polic ie s, or la c k the re of, a re suffic ie nt to show c om m ona lity . 2W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1292(e ) a nd Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 23(f). W e a ffirm . C ole m an’ s c la ss a c tion c om pla int a lle ge d tha

t Je nny C ra ig viola

te d C a lifornia La bor C ode se c tions 226.7 a nd 512. Howe ve r, the fa i lure to pa y a wa ge pre m ium is not a fre e sta nding viola

tion of the s e La

bor C ode se c tions. K

irby v . Immoos Fire

Prot., Inc . , 274 P.3d 1160, 1167–68 (C a l. 2012). The se se c tions of the L a b or C ode are viola

te d whe n a

n e m ploy e r forc e s its e m

ploy e e s to ta

ke short or late m e a l bre aks. K

i rby , 274 P.3d a

t 1168. Thewa ge pre m ium is the re m e dy

for this viola tion. Id. In orde r to show c om

m ona lity for the se c la im s the n , C ole m a n ha d to show a c om m on pra c tic e of forc ing e m ploy e e s to ta

ke short or la

te m e a l bre aks. Se e Ugas v . H & R Bloc k

Ente rs. , No. C V 09-6510 C AS (SHx), 2012 W L 5230297, a t *4 (C .D. C a l. July

9, 2012). A c om

m on pra c tic e of not pa

y ing wa ge pre m ium s is not suffic i e nt to show c om

m ona lity for c la im s unde r the se sta tute s. The fa ilure to pa

y wa ge pre m ium s is not a

fre e sta nding viola

tion of thesta

tute s. Se eid. C o le m an ha s not c ha lle nge d the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha

t Je nny C ra ig did not ha

v e a c om m on polic y of forc ing e m

ploy e e s to ta

ke short or la

te m e a l bre aks. The distric t c ourt wa s c orre c t to find tha

t C ole m an ha d not shown c om m ona lity .

3Our de c ision is una ffe c te d by the re c e nt C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l c a se Safe w ay , Inc . v . Supe r ior C

o u rt , 238 C a l. App. 4th 1138 (2015). In Safe w ay , the c la im be ing c e rtifie d for c la s s sta tus wa s a c la im unde r C a l ifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om pe tition La

w. Id. at 1155. Thec om

pla int a lle ge d tha

t the de fe nda

nt’ s polic y of not pa y ing wa ge pre m ium s wa s, by itse lf, a viola tion of theUnfa i r C o m

p e tition Law. Id. at 1160–61. Here , the fa ilure to pa y a wa ge pre m ium

is not, by itse lf, a viola tion of theLa

bor C o d e . The re fore , unlike in Safe w ay , c la ss c e rtific ation is not a ppropria te . AFFIRM E D.

4