Garcia v. ISS Facility Services, Inc., 3:19-cv-07807

Plaintiff Claudia Garcia worked for ISS Facility Services (through its California subsidiary) as a janitor at Broadridge’s El Dorado Hills facility from ~May 2018 to Aug 2019 and sued ISS (and Broadridge as an alleged joint employer) for wage-and-hour violations.
Claims: rounding of timekeeping that allegedly underpaid employees (avg. 4.7 hours per pay period) causing minimum-wage and overtime violations; unpaid pre-shift time (security/walking); missed meal and rest breaks (employees could not leave premises); and defective wage statements under Cal. Lab. Code §226.
Garcia moved to certify broad statewide classes of non-exempt ISS employees (and multiple proposed subclasses tied to specific violations).
Defendants contested class scope and commonality, argued that conditions vary across ISS client sites (Broadridge’s security regime is unique), and asserted many potential class members are bound by arbitration agreements.
The court found the proposed class definitions ambiguous, the record insufficient to show commonality across all ISS client sites, numerosity uncertain because of arbitration/superceding agreements, and plaintiff’s expert evidence only showed individual-level calculations rather than classwide common proof.
Judge Richard Seeborg denied the motion for class certification and denied Garcia’s motion to strike ISS declarations (Order dated Nov. 22, 2022).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class definition clarity	Proposed a statewide class of all non-exempt ISS employees and alternative detailed classes/subclasses	Definitions are ambiguous, internally inconsistent, and overbroad	Court: class definitions were unclear and flawed; certification denied on this ground
Geographic scope / commonality	A class can include all ISS locations; offered a few declarations and relied on payroll/time data	Conditions differ across client sites; Broadridge-specific practices may not generalize	Court: plaintiff failed to show commonality across ISS client sites; class cannot extend beyond Broadridge on present record
Numerosity / arbitration	Broadridge workforce is sufficient; many arbitration agreements may have been superseded by mediation agreements	Few employees worked at Broadridge and most are bound by arbitration preventing class membership	Court: numerosity is uncertain given arbitration risk; plaintiff must affirmatively show how many potential class members are not subject to arbitration if renewed
Predominance / common proof	Payroll and timekeeping records and statistical analysis can prove classwide liability	Liability will depend on individualized facts (when work began/ended, supervisor actions); written policies are compliant	Court: plaintiff’s expert analyzed only individual records and did not show a viable classwide method; predominance not satisfied

Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff bears burden to satisfy each Rule 23(a) requirement)
Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (Rule 23 requires affirmative demonstration of classwide commonality)
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans and Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (merits may be considered only insofar as relevant to Rule 23 analysis)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (plaintiff must show damages model capable of measuring classwide damages)
Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (describing Rule 23(a) prerequisites)
Castro v. ABM Indus., Inc., 325 F.R.D. 332 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (certification across client sites where company-wide policy and proof supported commonality)
ABM Indus. Overtime Cases, 19 Cal. App. 5th 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (affirming class certification where abundant multi-site evidence supported common proof)