Opinion ID: 2844019
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Commute-Time Claim

Text: Although Rule 23(a)(2) refers to common “questions of law or fact” in the plural, even a single common question will do. Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2556. But because “‘[a]ny competently crafted class complaint literally raises common questions,’” id. at 2551 (alteration in original) (quoting Richard A. Nagareda, Class Certification in the Age of ALCANTAR V. HOBART SERVICE 11 Aggregate Proof, 84 N.Y.U. L. REV. 97, 131–32 (2009)), courts should look for a “common contention” in determining whether putative class members’ claims can be litigated together. Id. “That common contention, moreover, must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Id. Thus, it is not just the common contention, but the answer to that contention, that is important: “What matters to class certification . . . is not the raising of common ‘questions’—even in droves —but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Nagareda, supra, at 132). A common contention need not be one that “will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.” Amgen, 133 S. Ct. at 1191. It only “must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution.” Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551 (emphasis added); see Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974) (“In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.” (quoting Miller v. Mackey Int’l, 452 F.2d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 1971)). Thus, “whether class members could actually prevail on the merits of their claims” is not a proper inquiry in determining the preliminary question “whether common questions exist.” Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 983 n.8 (9th Cir. 2011). “To hold otherwise would turn class certification into a mini-trial,” id., when the purpose of class certification is merely “to select the ‘metho[d]’ best suited to adjudication of the controversy ‘fairly and 12 ALCANTAR V. HOBART SERVICE efficiently.”’ Amgen, 133 S. Ct. at 1191 (alteration in original). In denying certification, the district court observed that Alcantar had not offered any evidence demonstrating that Hobart had a uniform policy requiring technicians to commute in the service vehicles and stated, “Absent proof of a company-wide policy, the commonality requirement is not met.” The court then concluded that, “because there is no evidence to suggest that technicians were required to drive the service vehicles to their homes, the lack of a potential legal argument precludes a common issue of fact or law for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2).” The district court’s conclusion is incorrect for two reasons. First, as explained below, there is a question of fact as to whether Hobart requires technicians to use its vehicles for their commute. See infra Part II. Second, it asks too much of Alcantar, who need only show that there is a common contention capable of classwide resolution—not that there is a common contention that “will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.” See Amgen, 133. S. Ct. at 1191. His contention is that service technicians, by virtue of their inability to park at Hobart’s facilities, must drive Hobart’s vehicles to work and, as a result of the rules applicable to their use of the vehicles, are sufficiently controlled during that commute to render the time compensable under California law. If it should ultimately be determined that Hobart did not exercise sufficient control over the technicians, that determination would not amount to ‘“some fatal dissimilarity”’ among class members that would make use of the class action device inefficient or unfair. Id. at 1197 (quoting Nagareda, supra, at 107). Instead, it would generate “a fatal similarity—failure of proof as to an element of the ALCANTAR V. HOBART SERVICE 13 plaintiff’s [claim].” Id. (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Nagareda, supra, at 107). A determination either way is inappropriate at the certification stage. We conclude that the district court erred in denying class certification because it evaluated the merits rather than focusing on whether the questions presented—meritorious or not—were common to the class. By doing so, the district court made an error of law, thereby abusing its discretion.