Muhammed Abdullah v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc.
731 F.3d 952
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- District court certified a class and seven subclasses in a California labor law action against USSA.
- Meal break subclass defined as employees with >6 hours, lacking a checked-out meal break, from 7/1/2007 onward.
- Employees signed on-duty meal period agreements; two versions existed pre- and post-2007 with revocation rights.
- USSA’s policy required on-duty meals, supported by testimony claiming most employees work at single guard posts.
- Plaintiffs allege uniform policy violates Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 4-2001; seeks class-wide liability and damages.
- Court analyzes Rule 23(a)(2) commonality and Rule 23(b)(3) predominance, focusing on the nature-of-work defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common questions predominate under Rule 23(a)(2). | Abdullah: common issue on nature of work defeats individualization. | USSA: post-specific duties require individualized inquiry. | Yes; common question drives resolution. |
| Whether the 'nature of the work' defense can be applied on a class-wide basis. | Abdullah: defense applicable class-wide per Brinker/Faulkinbury. | USSA: defense requires day-by-day post-specific analysis. | Yes; class-wide application permissible. |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by relying on a uniform policy as predominant factor. | Abdullah: policy shows common proof of liability. | USSA: must balance multiple factors; predominance uncertain. | No; district court properly weighed factors and found predominance. |
| Whether individual issues will predominate due to time-records and post variations. | Abdullah: time records and post-single staffing allow class-wide proof. | USSA: records are insufficient to avoid individualization. | No; records can extrapolate on/off-duty status and damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality must yield common answers driving resolution)
- Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513 (Cal. 2012) (uniform policy can create common questions for class treatment)
- Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., 216 Cal. App. 4th 220 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (uniform on-duty meal policy can render liability class-wide)
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (merits questions may be considered for certification if relevant)
- In re Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion when relying on a single factor)
- Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) (fact-intensive individualized analysis can defeat commonality)