Morgan v. Wet Seal, Inc.
210 Cal. App. 4th 1341
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege Wet Seal violated Labor Code 2802, Labor Code 450, and Wage Order 7 by requiring employees to purchase Wet Seal merchandise as a condition of employment without reimbursement.
- They also allege Wet Seal failed to reimburse mileage for travel between Wet Seal locations as required by section 2802.
- Plaintiffs moved for class certification for a dress code class and a travel reimbursement subclass.
- Wet Seal opposed certification, arguing policies were facially lawful and would require individualized inquiries.
- The trial court denied class certification after analyzing predominance and superiority and made detailed factual findings about the lack of a common method of proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do common questions predominate for dress code and travel claims? | Morgan/Famous/Sylvester. | Wet Seal. | No; common issues do not predominate. |
| Is a class action the superior method for this dispute? | Maintenance as class is superior. | Individual actions preferable due to individualized inquiries. | Class action not superior. |
| Did the court err by considering merits-like analysis in a certification ruling? | Court misapplied Linder; merited review allowed. | Merits review allowed to assess common issues. | Court properly limited merit consideration for predominance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000) (flexible handling of class action conditions; criteria for certification)
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) (precertification standard; predominance and community of interest)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard and class-action framework)
- Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 2007) (three-factor community of interest guiding certification)