Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc.
275 F.R.D. 513
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Defendant Maximus, Inc. operates health and human services programs nationwide and runs California Welfare-to-Work programs in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties.
- Plaintiffs Blanco Alonzo, Jodi Valdes, and Michelle Dabuet were Employment Case Managers in Maximus’s El Cajon office and seek to certify a California class of similarly-situated employees.
- Plaintiffs’ proposed class includes all California employees in Employment Case Manager or substantially similar duties from November 26, 2003 to final judgment.
- Plaintiffs re-label claims as: Bonus/Overtime, Paystub, Off-the-Clock, and Unfair Competition Law (UCL); the UCL claim is derivative of the first two and Off-the-Clock claims.
- The court grants in part and denies in part class certification: certifies three claims (Bonus/Overtime, Paystub, Off-the-Clock rounding) under Rule 23(b)(3) and denies certification for Off-the-Clock (working off-the-clock); appoints class representatives and counsel; sets notice/discovery timelines.
- The court’s decision is based on whether common questions and predominance exist, focusing on centralized corporate policies affecting all class members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 23(a) commonality for Bonus/Overtime claim | Alonzo asserts a common policy of not including bonuses in overtime | Maximus argues discretionary bonuses and office-specific policies vary | Commonality satisfied for Bonus/Overtime |
| Rule 23(a) commonality for Paystub claim | Paystubs uniformly lacked hourly rate and pay-period dates | Disputed statutory requirements and injury proof are damages issues | Commonality satisfied for Paystub |
| Rule 23(a) commonality for Off-the-Clock rounding claim | Uniform rounding policy affected all class members | Rounding effects vary and could be individual | Commonality satisfied for Off-the-Clock (rounding) |
| Rule 23(a) commonality for Off-the-Clock working off-the-clock claim | Company-wide pressure and overtime practices caused off-the-clock work | No uniform policy; evidence shows only isolated incidents | Commonality not satisfied; certification denied for this claim |
| Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance and Superiority | Common issues predominate; class action superior | Damages questions may complicate but do not defeat common issues | Predominance and superiority satisfied for certified claims; overall class certified for three claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) (establishes Rule 23(a) commonality as common questions can suffice)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (commonality requires a common core of salient facts or issues)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (typicality and commonality considerations in class actions)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (predominance and class settlement considerations in Rule 23(b)(3))
- In re Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2009) (uniform policies and predominance considerations in certification)
- Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 602 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (uniform policies and predominance considerations in certification)