Jack Jimenez v. Allstate Insurance Company
765 F.3d 1161
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Allstate reclassified ~800 California claims adjusters from exempt (salaried) to hourly in 2005 but did not reduce workload; pay still referred to as "salary" and hourly rates were not disclosed.
- Adjusters (inside and outside) do not keep time records; local managers must file exceptions to adjust time for overtime/leave and are constrained by non‑negotiable compensation budgets.
- Plaintiffs (Jimenez and a class of current/former adjusters) sued for unpaid off‑the‑clock overtime and related state‑law wage claims; district court certified the class on unpaid overtime, timely payment, and unfair competition claims (not certified: meal‑break and wage‑statement claims).
- District court identified three common questions tied to California’s off‑the‑clock test: (1) whether Allstate’s unofficial practices caused unpaid overtime, (2) whether Allstate knew or should have known, and (3) whether Allstate stood idly by.
- District court allowed classwide liability determination using statistical sampling for liability while reserving individualized damages and defenses for a later phase; Allstate appealed under Rule 23(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) | Jimenez: three common questions (existence of unofficial policies, knowledge, and idle‑by) will drive classwide liability under California law | Allstate: plaintiffs lack a common contention capable of classwide resolution (Dukes) | Court: Affirmed — the three questions map to the three elements of California off‑the‑clock claims and satisfy commonality |
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) / superiority of class procedure | Jimenez: common liability questions predominate; statistical sampling can efficiently resolve liability, leaving damages individualized | Allstate: individualized issues (amounts, defenses) predominate and defeat class treatment | Court: Affirmed district court (Allstate waived fuller challenge); common liability predominates; damages can be bifurcated |
| Use of statistical sampling/representative proof for liability | Jimenez: sampling and representative evidence can prove classwide liability | Allstate: sampling violates due process and conflicts with Dukes/Comcast if it prevents individualized determinations | Court: Affirmed — sampling for liability permissible if method is reliable and damages/individual defenses are reserved; district court vetted experts and methods |
| Restriction on affirmative defenses at class stage / due process | Jimenez: class treatment on liability is proper while preserving defenses for later | Allstate: class certification improperly limits ability to present individualized affirmative defenses | Court: Affirmed — district court preserved Allstate’s rights to raise individual defenses at damages phase and did not deprive due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requires a common contention apt to drive the litigation)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (damages model must be capable of producing classwide damages to support certification)
- Leyva v. Medline Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2013) (damages issues alone generally cannot defeat certification in wage‑and‑hour cases)
- Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (a single significant common question can satisfy Rule 23(a)(2))
- Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 543 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (articulating three‑part test for off‑the‑clock claims under California law)
- In re Whirlpool Corp. Front‑Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) (liability can be tried classwide while damages are individualized)