Mora v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.
124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 535
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Putative class representatives allege Big Lots misclassified California store managers as exempt to avoid overtime pay and related wage claims; evidence suggests managers spend substantial time on nonexempt tasks and overtime work is common.
- Trial court denied class certification, finding no uniform corporate policy and no systematic misclassification; court held no abuse of discretion on certification denial.
- Consolidated amended complaint defines a California class of store managers from Sept. 1, 2002 to disposition, excluding certain opt-out members from a prior overtime settlement.
- Big Lots offered evidence of wide store-to-store variation in duties, time allocation, and supervision, arguing no common policy or practice; plaintiffs offered declarations and a Crandall observational study supporting uniformity of misclassification.
- Putative class representatives argued that Dr. Hoffman’s proposed survey could manage individual claims if certified, while Big Lots argued no survey had been conducted and the evidence showed substantial individualized issues.
- Court affirmed denial of class certification, holding there was no predominance of common questions due to variation in store operations and manager duties; no abuse of discretion in denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied class certification for lack of predominance | Mora argues common misclassification policy exists across stores | Big Lots shows store variation defeats common questions | Yes, denial affirmed for lack of predominance |
| Whether there was ascertainable class and well-defined community of interest | Mora asserts clear class definition and common interests | Big Lots argues no community of interest due to individualized duties | Yes, community of interest not established; certification affirmed denial |
| Whether evidence of uniform policy was amenable to class treatment | Mora contends uniform corporate policies support class treatment | Big Lots presents varied, nonuniform store practices | No, evidence not amenable to class treatment |
| Whether the court properly evaluated use of Dr. Hoffman's proposed survey | Hoffman’s survey could manage individual claims if certified | No survey conducted; evidence insufficient for common proof | Yes, survey proposed but not proven; not sufficient for predominance |
Key Cases Cited
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) (establishes framework for class certification and predominance)
- Arenas v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc., 183 Cal.App.4th 723 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (confirms sufficiency of predominance analysis in misclassification cases)
- Dunbar v. Albertson's, Inc., 141 Cal.App.4th 1422 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (emphasizes individualized liability considerations in class actions)
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000) (defines community of interest elements for certification)
- Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (rejects blanket evidentiary rulings; requires explicit objections ruling)