179 Cal.Rptr.3d 69
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Dynamex challenged class certification/decertification in a wage-and-hour suit involving independent contractors vs. employees under Wage Order No. 9.
- Plaintiffs Lee and Chevez alleged misclassification violated Wage Order No. 9 and Labor Code provisions, plus UCL claims.
- The trial court certified a class under the IWC definition (Martinez framework) with several exclusions; Dynamex moved to decertify.
- The court later denied decertification; Dynamex petitioned for mandamus and argued Borello common-law test should apply, not Martinez's IWC approach.
- The California Supreme Court later instructed a partial grant of the petition: apply IWC meaning for Wage Order 9 claims, but apply common-law (Borello) for claims outside Wage Order 9, and reevaluate certification accordingly.
- Court-filing history included Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. and Duran v. U.S. Bank as influencing the standard for class certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wage Order 9 claims fit Martinez or Borello for class certification. | Lee/Chevez rely on Martinez and IWC to define employment for certification. | Dynamex argues Borello should govern, making class certification inappropriate. | Partial: IWC definition governs Wage Order 9 claims; Borello governs outside Wage Order 9. |
| Whether Ayala/Duran require reevaluation of class certification for non-Wage Order 9 claims. | Ayala permits class certification focusing on right to control; Ayala supports certification. | Ayala limits certification due to individualized issues; certification should be reevaluated. | Petition granted to reevaluate certification for non-Wage Order 9 claims in light of Ayala. |
| Whether the trial court erred in certifying the class under an IWC framework without fully addressing individualized issues. | Certification intact under Martinez for Wage Order 9 claims. | Martinez may not justify certification if core issues are individualized. | Court affirmed certification approach for Wage Order 9 claims; remanded for reevaluation regarding other claims. |
| Whether the class should be decertified for Wage Order 9 claims given Ayala’s guidance. | Ayala supports class mechanism focusing on common control issues. | Ayala requires careful assessment of control vs. variations; decertification may be warranted for some claims. | Remand to reevaluate class certification in light of Ayala. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) (IWC defines employment for wage claims; governs class certification considerations under wage orders)
- Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2014) (Focuses on controlling issue in class certification; differences in control analysis rather than task variation)
- Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (Control-of-work-details test; informs common-law employment status and wage-order applicability)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (Affirms procedural framework for class certification standards and manageability considerations)
- Sotelo v. Medianews Group, Inc., 207 Cal.App.4th 639 (Cal. App. 2012) (Addresses limitations of relying solely on common-law test in wage-order contexts)
- Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 2007) (Precedent recognizing IWC wage orders shape the employment relationship in wage claims)