Lynne Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc.
737 F.3d 538
9th Cir.2013Background
- Named plaintiffs filed a class action against CDN alleging FLSA violations, California UCL, and California Labor Code claims, on behalf of current, former, and future employees at San Francisco and Monterey Park locations.
- District court certified the FLSA claim as a collective action and the state-law claims as a Rule 23 class action.
- After a 16-day jury trial and 3-day bench trial, the district court awarded plaintiffs over $2.5 million and denied injunctive relief.
- We affirmed the district court, but the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Wal-Mart v. Dukes.
- On remand, we reverse the district court’s Rule 23(b)(2) certification for monetary relief and remand to reconsider under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and for possible continued certification for injunctive relief.
- The case focuses on whether the proposed class meets Rule 23’s requirements, particularly commonality under 23(a) and predominance under 23(b)(3), after changes prompted by Wal-Mart.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 23(a) commonality is satisfied post-Wal-Mart | Wang argues common questions exist due to a uniform policy of exempt classifications. | CDN contends commonality is lacking given potential individual issues. | Commonality must be reconsidered; vacated and remanded for Rule 23(a) reanalysis. |
| Whether monetary claims fit Rule 23(b)(2) after Wal-Mart | Class seeks incidental monetary relief alongside injunctive relief under 23(b)(2). | Wal-Mart confines monetary claims to Rule 23(b)(3). | Monetary claims cannot proceed under 23(b)(2); remanded to assess injunctive relief viability. |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(3) class is appropriate given predominance issues | Predominance shown by uniform exemption policy supports class treatment. | Predominance requires more than uniform policy; individual issues may overwhelm common questions. | Remanded to reevaluate predominance in light of Wells Fargo, Vinole, Brinker, and Wal-Mart. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (limits class certification for monetary claims; requires common questions capable of classwide resolution)
- Falcon v. General Telephone Co. of Southwest, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (rigorous analysis required for Rule 23(a); commonality must be proven)
- Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (class adjudication considerations for commonality and merits)
- In re Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2009) (criticizes reliance on uniform exemption policies for predominance)
- Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) (predominance analysis must account for other individual issues)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513 (Cal. 2012) (meal-break obligations; employer duty to provide breaks clarified)
- Bates v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (standing considerations for injunctive relief in Rule 23(b)(2) actions)
- Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) (authority on revisiting class certification determinations)