McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, F.S.B.
2:12-cv-03035
E.D. Cal.Aug 12, 2013Background
- Plaintiff seeks state-law class certification under Rule 23 and conditional FLSA certification for overtime claims on behalf of mortgage underwriters in California from Dec 17, 2008 onward.
- Defendant classifies all Underwriters as exempt administrative employees and does not track hours for wage statements.
- Underwriters share uniform job duties and follow standardized procedures under centralized control.
- Plaintiff testified about occasional overtime and lack of second meal periods; other Underwriters similarly report long hours without multiple meals.
- Court allowed class certification for state-law claims and conditional certification for the FLSA overtime claim based on common issue predominance and numerosity.
- Notice and collection procedures were approved, with supervision controls on notice dissemination and data provision to plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) | Common misclassification proves predominant. | Predominance requires individualized issues; reliance on exemption policy too strong. | Common questions predominate; misclassification evidence supports predominance. |
| Rule 23(a) Numerosity | 58 current/former Underwriters and 26–28 former satisfy numerosity. | Numerosity questioned for overtime and waiting-time subclasses. | Numerosity satisfied for all state-law claims. |
| Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) | Underlying exemption classification is a common issue. | Some individualized proof may be needed. | Commonality established for all state-law claims. |
| Typicality under Rule 23(a)(3) | Plaintiff’s claims are co-extensive with class claims due to shared duties and policies. | Overtime claim may not be typical since knowledge of overtime varies. | Typicality satisfied. |
| Adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4) | Plaintiff and counsel will vigorously represent the class without conflicts. | No evidence of conflict. | Adequacy of representation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) (predominance shown by common misclassification elements)
- In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2009) (common issues predominate despite individual variations)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (class-wide proof not required for every element; predominance standard applies)
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (class certification and common proof considerations in misclassification cases)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (typicality and adequacy concepts in class actions)
- Kress v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 263 F.R.D. 623 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (notice-stage analysis for FLSA 216(b) conditional certification)
- Bishop v. Petro-Chem. Transp., LLC, 582 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (lenient first-tier threshold for similarly situated employees)
- McLaughlin v. Ho Fat Seto, 850 F.2d 586 (9th Cir. 1988) (representative testimony can prove damages for class members)