defendant moved to decertify the class, but the court opined that the defendant failed to demonstrate any new or changed circumstances or changes in applicable law that would warrant decertification. The court also found that the arguments made by the defendant regarding choice-of-law and damages already had been considered and rejected by the court. The court concluded that the potential existence of individualized damage assessments did not automatically disqualify the class from certification, as long as the fact of damages could be proven on a common basis. The court stated that the plaintiffs’ proposed damages calculation methodology had not been found to be unworkable, and rulings on the viability of the model would be more appropriate at the summary judgment stage. For these reasons, the court denied the defendant ’ s motion to decertify the class action. Another case from this past year demonstrating the inadequacy of individualized damages assessments in preventing Rule 23 class certification is Sansone, et al. v. Charter Communications, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91315 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2023). The plaintiffs, a group of former employees, filed a class action alleging that the defendant failed to pay their accrued vacation wages when their employment was terminated, as required by California law. The plaintiffs brought several claims, including violations of California Labor Code, breach of contract, and unfair competition. The case had previously gone through various motions and appeals, with the grant of summary judgment to the defendant on the issue of accrued vacation wages reversed on appeal. After remand, the plaintiffs sought class certification of the accrued wages class pursuant to Rule 23, and the court granted the motion. The defendant argued that class treatment was not appropriate because not all class members suffered an injury, and individualized inquiries would be necessary to determine who was actually denied vacation wage pay because some class members had their vacation hours transferred and benefited from the transfer. However, the court rejected these arguments. It opined that the injury arose from the violation of labor laws and was not mitigated by the subsequent transfer. The court found that since the class contained over 8,000 members, the class was sufficiently numerous. The court also determined that common issues predominated, making class certification appropriate. The court concluded that given the size of the class, the predominance of several common questions that had already been resolved in the litigation, the absence of any other pending litigation concerning the claims at issue, and the propriety and convenience to the parties of proceeding in the forum, a class action would be superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Even where courts find individualized damages to be plausible, a common issue of liability will often preclude decertification. For example, in Guy, et al. v. Absopure Water Co. , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166848 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 12, 2023), the plaintiffs, a group of delivery drivers, filed a collective action alleging that the defendant, a bottled water company, failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The court previously had granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Following discovery, the defendant moved to decertify the collective action, but the court found that the drivers had similar job duties, compensation structures, and timekeeping methods, which indicated they were similarly-situated. The court analyzed individualized defenses such as exemptions to the FLSA, the applicable statute of limitations, and differences in hours worked by the members of the collective action. Ultimately, the court concluded that any differences did not warrant decertification, and any individualized issues related to damages, and not the defendant ’ s liability. The court also assessed whether proceeding collectively was fair, procedurally manageable, and in line with the FLSA ’ s remedial purpose. The court determined that the common issues and proofs favored proceeding as a collective action, and decertification would lead to inefficiency and greater judicial resource expenditures. For these reasons, the court denied the defendant ’ s motion for decertification of the collective action. Similarly, individualized damages issues are often seen as immaterial when compared to the common issue of liability, as in Valencia, et al. v. Armada Skilled Home Care Of NM LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25243 (D. N.Mex. Feb. 14, 2023). The plaintiff, a home health care provider, filed a collective action alleging that the defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, and the New Mexico Wage Payment Act. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant
34
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online