Marlyn Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center
889 F.3d 623
9th Cir.2018Background
- Corona Regional Medical Center (and related corporate defendant) employed hourly RNs; plaintiffs Sali and Spriggs are former RNs who sued for class relief alleging various wage-and-hour violations under California law.
- Plaintiffs sought certification of seven classes; on appeal they challenged denial as to four classes: rounding-time, regular-rate, wage-statement, and waiting-time.
- At certification plaintiffs relied on a paralegal’s (Ruiz) spreadsheet analysis of payroll/timekeeping data showing average undercounted minutes per shift due to Corona’s quarter-hour rounding practice; district court struck Ruiz’s declaration as inadmissible.
- District court denied certification for multiple reasons: lack of admissible evidence showing typicality, Spriggs not a class member (adequacy), proposed class counsel (Bisnar Chase) alleged inadequate, and predominance failures for several classes.
- Ninth Circuit reversed in part: held the district court erred by excluding inadmissible-but-probative evidence at the class stage, abused discretion in rejecting adequacy of class counsel and in finding lack of predominance for rounding-time and wage-statement classes; affirmed that Spriggs is not an adequate representative but Sali remains.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court could refuse to consider evidence at certification because it might be inadmissible at trial (typicality/evidentiary standard) | Plaintiffs argued the Ruiz declaration and supporting materials were proper for the class stage to show typicality even if some items might be later refined for trial | Corona argued Ruiz’s analysis and underlying data were inadmissible lay/expert opinion, unauthenticated hearsay, and unreliable | Court: At class-certification stage a district court may consider evidence that ultimately might be inadmissible; exclusion solely for inadmissibility was legal error and abuse of discretion |
| Adequacy of representative Spriggs | Spriggs argued she could represent proposed classes | Corona argued Spriggs was not a member of classes defined by full-time classification | Court: Spriggs is not adequate because she is not a member of the class she seeks to represent, but Sali remains an adequate representative so this alone does not defeat certification |
| Adequacy of proposed class counsel (Bisnar Chase) | Plaintiffs pointed to substantial investigatory and litigation work, retention of experts, and counsel experience | Corona pointed to counsel’s discovery failures, missed depositions, failure to produce an expert for deposition, and questions about declaration authenticity | Court: District court abused discretion to the extent it preliminarily disqualified counsel on those grounds; counsel’s conduct may be weighed later but the denial was premature |
| Predominance for rounding-time and wage-statement classes | Plaintiffs argued rounding policy and wage-statement inaccuracy present common, classwide issues susceptible to common proof | Corona argued individualized inquiries (whether an RN was “‘actually working’” during rounded periods; whether each employee was damaged by inaccurate paystubs) would predominate | Court: Erred. For rounding-time, employer-control and company practice questions can be resolved classwide (court misapplied California law on compensable time). For wage statements, Labor Code §226 creates a per se injury where required information is missing, so damages need not be individualized |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 881 F.3d 679 (9th Cir.) (discusses Rule 23 prerequisites and rigorous analysis)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (class-certification requirements and predominance discussion)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (Rule 23(a) and necessity of rigorous analysis)
- Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (admissibility at class-certification stage and weighing expert evidence)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standards for stage-specific evidentiary showing)
- Morillion v. Royal Packaging Co., 995 P.2d 139 (Cal. Supreme Court) (compensable time and employer control under California law)