Bartoni v. American Medical Response West
A143784
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 24, 2017Background
- AMR (American Medical Response West) employed dispatchers and field EMTs/paramedics across multiple Northern California counties; plaintiffs are four current/former employees suing on behalf of proposed classes and under PAGA for alleged statewide meal and rest period violations.
- Plaintiffs alleged AMR maintained uniform policies: (1) required on-duty meal period agreements, (2) required employees to remain on-duty/on-call during breaks (depriving off-duty rest breaks), and (3) other collective-bargaining provisions affecting timing/duration/accrual of breaks. Two subclasses: Communication Center and Field Employees.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify classes for Labor Code and UCL claims; PAGA claim remained a non-class representative claim in the trial court.
- The trial court denied class certification, finding numerosity and ascertainability met but concluding no community of interest—individualized issues predominated. The court treated on-call but uninterrupted breaks as potentially off-duty for both meal and rest periods.
- This Court treated the appeal as a writ petition, held the trial court erred as to rest periods (conflicting with governing law), vacated denial of certification only as to the overarching rest-period claim, and remanded for further proceedings. The remainder of the denial (meal-period and other policies) was upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is denial of class certification appealable given pending PAGA claims? | Denial is a "death knell" appealable order because it terminates class claims. | Munoz controls: with substantial PAGA penalties, plaintiffs can pursue PAGA, so denial is not a de facto final judgment. | Court avoided deciding appealability; exercised discretion to treat appeal as writ petition and proceeded. |
| Whether AMR’s on-duty meal period policy and on-call-but-uninterrupted meal breaks can be adjudicated classwide | AMR uniformly requires on-duty meal agreements; classwide liability can be determined without individualized proof. | Practices differ across operations; many breaks were uninterrupted and industry facts require individual inquiry. | Trial court properly found meal-period claims unsuitable for classwide adjudication; denial as to meal-periods affirmed. |
| Whether on-call time can be an off-duty rest period (central to overarching rest-period claim) | On-call status negates off-duty rest; rest periods must be off-duty and cannot be while on call. | Trial court held on-call but uninterrupted breaks could be off-duty; AMR relied on DLSE/industry nuance. | Supreme Court authority (Augustus) holds on-call time is not off-duty; trial court’s contrary legal premise reversible. Court vacated denial re: overarching rest-period claim and remanded. |
| Whether nine other specific CBA-based policies (timing/duration/accrual) are suitable for class treatment | These policies are facially noncompliant and uniform across classes; class treatment appropriate. | Policies apply unevenly across locations/time; named plaintiffs may lack standing/typicality for narrower subclasses. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying certification as to these policies due to lack of uniform application and inadequate trial plan/named representatives. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baycol Cases I and II, 51 Cal.4th 751 (death knell doctrine for class-denial appealability)
- Munoz v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 238 Cal.App.4th 291 (denial of class certification not appealable when significant PAGA claims remain)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (employer must relieve employees of all duty to satisfy meal-period obligation; class-certification principles)
- Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn., 59 Cal.4th 1 (manageability of individual issues is critical to class certification)
- Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2 Cal.5th 257 (on-call time is not an off-duty rest period)
- Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assocs., Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 220 (class certification granted where employer uniformly required on-duty meal waivers)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (PAGA actions are representative and not subject to class requirements)