Source: http://thecomplexlitigator.com/post-data/category/Class+Actions%3A++Superiority
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:41:02+00:00

Document:
Court of Appeal reverses order decertifying a class in Harper v. 24 Hour Fitness, Inc.
This is proving to be a busy day in the world of class actions. And once again, Division Seven in the Second Appellate District is in the mix. Division Seven seems to be one of those lucky divisions that attracts interesting class action issue appeals (I don't know if they consider themselves "lucky" to be the beneficiaries of these questions). Just the last year was a busy one for them. Division Seven recently took some of the sting out of Alvarez v. May Dept. Stores Co., 143 Cal.App.4th 1223 (2006) with their decision in Johnson v. Glaxosmithkline, Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 1497 (September 19, 2008), as modified (October 14, 2008). In Lee v. Dynamex (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1325 (discussed here), Division Seven reversed an Order denying class certification after the trial court refused to allow discovery of class member identity and contact information. And in Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, Division Seven added to the body of post-Pioneer decisions confirming the right to discovery putative class member (witness) identity. And that's just the published decisions.
Division Seven also decided Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, the first post-Pioneer decision confirming the right to discovery putative class member identity. Other notable, fairly recent opinions include: Aron v. U-Haul Co. of California (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 796; Aguiar v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 121; Singh v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 387; Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365; Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food Markets, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 387; and, Newell v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 1094. There are many substantial class action issues implicated in that list, including fee awards, insurance claims arising out of the Northridge earthquake, PAGA interpretation, and wage & hour law issues. And the list includes decisions both favorable and unfavorable to positions advocated by the respective class action proponents. But, uniformly, this Division endeavors to correctly state and apply highly nuanced issues arising in class actions.
(Slip op., at pp. 11-12.) This is an important distinction. Too many trial courts succumb to arguments that the class identity can't be explicitly stated at the time of certification.
For defense counsel, asking the court to require the plaintiff to provide a trial plan illustrating the expected course of proceedings if the class is certified can help the defendant to persuade the court of practical manageability problems. . . . On the other hand, voluntarily providing a specific trial plan can be also be an effective tool for plaintiffs in seeking class certification. Provide a trial plan illustrating a reasonable and efficient process for resolving both common issues and any individualized issues can give even a skeptical court a level of comfort in certifying a class in the face of more abstract manageability arguments being raised by the defendant.
(Ibid.) The potential value of Karlsgodt's observation is that it might facilitate a process where the cream rises to the top and the junk sinks (with greater reliability that we seem to have now). In other words, if the class action has major structural flaws, the trial plan may illuminate them, but if the class action is indeed legitimate, then the trial plan may provide the confirmation of what the pleadings and sample evidence already strongly suggest. Perhaps a greater emphasis on the need for a thorough discussion of “superiority” of the class action device (required in California state class action) would promote movement in this direction without specifically imposing a pre-certification trial plan requirement, such as that required by Texas courts.
The complete post is worth a read.
The opinion contains some interesting language on the "superiority" element of class certification: The party seeking class certification has the burden to establish that class action will be a superior means of resolving the dispute. (Aguiar v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at pp. 132-133.) Our Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of the superiority of a class action in a wage and hour case. In Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, the Supreme Court concluded that both factors on which the trial court relied in this case – the size of some claims suggesting individual enforcement and the possibility of administrative proceedings before the Labor Commissioner – were insufficient to deny class certification. The court noted that there are many other factors in favor of class resolution in such cases, including that current employees might not bring individual claims out of a fear of retaliation, that current employees might not know of their rights (especially where, as here, the employer has affirmatively told them they are not eligible for overtime), and the necessity of class actions to give teeth to wage and hour laws even when some employees may have claims large enough for individual enforcement. (Id. at p. 459-462.) The court specifically held that an administrative action before the Labor Commissioner was an inadequate substitute for a class action. (Id. at p. 465.) As such, the trial court’s conclusion that a class action is not superior cannot stand.
(Kralowec, "New class certification decision: Bell v. Superior Court (H.F. Cox, Inc.)," The UCL Practioner, www.theuclpractitioner.com, quoting Bell.) My reaction to Bell at the time was that it seemed substantially more useful to plaintiffs than defendants. As an aside, this is almost always true when a Court of Appeal reversed any part of a denial of certification. Reversing a certification denial order, in any part, is a big deal. Certification decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and trial courts get the benefit of the doubt on appeal.
Today, I argued (successfully) against a defendant that sought to decertify a class. Relying heavily on Bell, the defendant attacked a garden-variety class definition used in overtime/off the clock cases as lacking ascertainability. Bell included some language that made defendant's argument more than trivial to overcome.
The defendant's use of Bell, an apparently plaintiff-friendly case, was sobering. I was reminded of the danger inherrent in evaluating new precedent through the bias of one's primary practice area, in my case, predominantly plaintiff-side class actions. While it is usually the case that a defendant, seeking decertification, would shy away from any certification opinion where any portion of a denial of certification was reversed, there are no guarantees that you won't have to deal with "surprise" citations. In Bell, as in most cases, there are bits and pieces that are as useful to defendants as to plaintiffs, depending upon what issues are in play.
My unsolicited advice to erstwhile class action practitioners is to set aside some time to read each and every new class action decision, front to back, at least once while it is still hot off the presses. Your early read of new authority may be enough to help you avoid surprises down the line.
Gentry v. Superior Court (Circuit City Stores, Inc.) (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 is officially the law of this land (California).
First, individual awards in wage and hour cases tend to be modest. In addition to the fact that litigation over minimum wage by definition involves the lowest-wage workers, overtime litigation also usually involves workers at the lower end of the pay scale, since professional, executive, and administrative employees are generally exempt from overtime statutes and regulations.
(Gentry, at p. 464.) Gentry’s strong policy statements concerning at least wage & hour class actions all but declared the use of the class action device superior to any other means of enforcing California’s wage & hour laws. The Gentry decision is available for free through FindLaw, so long as you create a free account first. Thanks to The UCL Practitioner for noting the denial of the Petition.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.