Brown v. American Airlines, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99495
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiff Lorraine Brown sues AA for California Labor Code violations on behalf of a putative class of Airport Agents.
- Plaintiff asserts four claims: overtime (including shift trades and bonuses), wage statement inaccuracies, UCL violations, and penalties under PAGA.
- Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on three claims and for summary adjudication on the PAGA claim.
- Plaintiff seeks class certification for the First, Second, and Third Claims; Fourth Claim remains under PAGA.
- The court previously denied class certification in a related case (Martin) and addresses collateral estoppel and class-certification standards here.
- The court denies all three motions—judgment on the pleadings, summary adjudication, and class certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the UCL claim be premised on Labor Code provisions and be restitution-based rather than damages? | Brown seeks restitution for back wages under the UCL. | AA contends UCL relief cannot include Labor Code damages. | UCL restitution for back wages is proper; UCL may so premise the claim. |
| Does collateral estoppel apply to bar the class claims from Martin? | Smith enables nonparties to avoid estoppel from denial of class certification. | Martin's denial should collaterally estop the class claims. | Collateral estoppel does not apply to nonparties here. |
| Is PAGA unconstitutional under separation of powers? | PAGA is constitutional and proper to enforce Labor Code penalties. | PAGA violates separation of powers. | PAGA summary adjudication denied; constitutional challenge rejected. |
| Can Plaintiff meet Rule 23 requirements to certify a class for the overtime and wage-statement claims? | Common questions predominate; class treatment appropriate. | Conflicts among class members and individualized issues defeat commonality and adequacy. | Court denies class certification due to adequacy concerns and lack of predominance. |
| Should the court certify under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3)? | Requests certification under either provision. | Dukes requires predominance; b(2) inappropriate with monetary claims. | Denied under both 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). |
Key Cases Cited
- Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods., Co., 23 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 2000) (UCL restitution includes unpaid wages; penalties are not recoverable as damages but back wages can be restitutionary)
- Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., 50 Cal.4th 1389 (Cal. 2010) (UCL restitution for earned wages; distinction between restitution and penalties)
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368 (U.S. 2011) (federal preclusion rules for class-action collateral estoppel; nonparties generally not bound by failed class certifications)
- Alvarez v. May Dept. Stores Co., 143 Cal.App.4th 1223 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (state collateral estoppel privity and class certification context; limited nonparty estoppel discussed)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (redefines commonality and predominance; monetary claims affect certification under Rule 23(b)(2))