plaintiffs had plausibly established an ascertainable class. The court found that the class was defined based on specific and objective criteria, specifically, that the class would consist of those performing work as distributors in Vermont under a Distributor Agreement or during a specified time frame. The court reasoned that the defendant ’ s business records, which would presumably contain information about distributor agreements and work history, could be used to identify class members. The court also concluded that the class definition excluded potential ambiguity by specifying eligibility. Id. at *8. Finally, as to the superiority requirement, the court found that the plaintiffs’ description of the class was clear and objective, making it possible to identify class members using the defendants’ business records. The court also noted that the plaintiffs were seeking injunctive relief that would impact all potential class members, and therefore class action would provide an efficient way to address the injunctive relief sought. The court thereby denied the defendant ’ s motion to strike the class claims, finding the request to be premature. Challenging typicality in a Rule 23 class action, including the adequacy of the plaintiffs, is an uphill and often unsuccessful battle, as demonstrated by Oman, et al. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169540 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2023). The plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that the defendant failed to provide adequate wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code. The plaintiffs moved to certify a class of California employees who worked as flight attendants for defendant Delta Airlines and received non-compliant wage statements issued to flight attendants and did not participate in Delta ’ s Enhanced Retirement or Voluntary Opt-Out Programs. The plaintiffs did so after the Ninth Circuit found that Delta had a good faith defense to the wage statement claim prior to January 10, 2022, and that Delta changed its wage statements in an effort to make them compliant on October 8, 2022. Id. at *2. This motion came after the parties’ negotiations to certify a narrowed class fell apart when the plaintiffs refused to stipulate that Delta ’ s post-October 21, 2022, wage statements were compliant. Id. Delta opposed the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Delta ’ s opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification did not dispute the Rule 23 requirements of numerosity and commonality. Id. at *3. However, Delta argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were not typical. Id. at *4. Delta argued that the plaintiffs’ request for certification would create prejudicial discrepancies between the plaintiffs and putative class members that would disqualify them and their counsel as adequate class representatives under Rule 23. In addition, Delta sought relief to file a second motion for summary judgment to secure an advisory opinion from the court that its wage statements issued after October 21, 2022, were fully compliant with the Labor Code. Id. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and held that the plaintiffs satisfied the Rule 23 requirements of typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority for a class action. Id. at *6-7. The court held that the plaintiffs’ alleged wage statement violations were “typical” of the putative class in light of Delta ’ s “good faith defense” to any wage statement violations that occurred before the proposed class period ’ s start date and Delta ’ s admission that it revised wage statements immediately after the class period ’ s end date. Id. at *3. The court rejected Delta ’ s argument that the plaintiffs’ proposed class period was shorter than the class alleged in the operative pleading that prevented the plaintiffs’ claim from being typical, because the plaintiffs had provided “adequate justification” for narrowing the class period, especially after the Ninth Circuit ’ s ruling. Id. The court also held that plaintiffs and their counsel were adequate representatives given the “sensible and logical manner” the plaintiffs used to narrow the class definition, i.e., the class period started immediately after the time period of Delta ’ s good faith defense and the class period ended when Delta admittedly started making revisions to its wage statements. Id. at *5. The court dismissed Delta ’ s accusation of “claim splitting” as the plaintiffs were not “jettisoning categories of damages to make this case more certifiable to the detriment of class members.” Id. As the final step in certifying the class, the court determined that predominance and the superiority of resolving the plaintiffs’ claims on a class-wide basis were satisfied given the amount of class members who were “based in California and performed a majority of their work in California.” Id. at *7. Finally, the court denied Delta ’ s request for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment on the question of whether the wage statements issued after the class period complied with the Labor Code requirements.
41
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online