Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc.
59 Cal. 4th 522
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Antelope Valley Newspapers distributes the Antelope Valley Press via independent carriers under standard form contracts.
- Named carriers Ayala, Briseño, Duran, and Núñez allege they are statutory employees entitled to wage-and-hour protections.
- Ayala sued on behalf of a putative class in December 2008 seeking certification for wage-and-hour and related claims.
- Trial court denied class certification, citing predominance issues due to individualized control inquiries.
- Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for reconsideration of a subset of claims.
- California Supreme Court granted review to address whether common questions predominate for class certification under Borello’s control-based test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do common questions predominate on employee status under Borello? | Ayala: common proof available, especially contract terms, to show employee status. | Antelope Valley: substantial variations in control require individualized inquiries. | Yes, common proof can predominate; remand for correct analysis. |
| Is the trial court’s predominance ruling reversible when based on incorrect legal standards about control? | Class certification should proceed if common control issues are answerable classwide. | Ruling rested on flawed emphasis on exercise of control, not on uniform right to control. | Reversed and remanded for reconsideration under proper standards. |
| Can form contracts and uniform rights to control support classwide proof of employee status? | Contracts establish uniform rights and thus common proof. | Variations in actual practice undermine uniform control. | Uniform contractual rights are probative; need balancing with actual conduct on remand. |
| Should Borello’s secondary factors be weighed in predominance analysis at certification? | Secondary factors support commonality when aligned with contract terms. | secondary factors may vary and require individualized inquiries. | Secondary factors must be weighed for materiality and manageability; remand allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (predominance framework for class actions; class certification review standard)
- Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (principal control-of-work test with secondary indicia)
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) (class certification analysis focuses on proof type, not merits)
- Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd., 2 Cal.3d 943 (Cal. 1970) (contract terms and industry custom inform control assessment)
- Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 2007) (illustrates Restatement factors and control analysis in employment status)
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion review standard for certification orders)