Sali ex rel. Themselves v. Corona Reg'l Med. Ctr., 909 F.3d 996

Background

Plaintiffs Marlyn Sali and Deborah Spriggs (RNs) sued Corona Regional Medical Center and UHS of Delaware, Inc., alleging multiple California wage-and-hour violations and sought to certify seven putative classes of RNs (rounding-time, short-shift, meal-period, rest-break, regular-rate, wage-statement, waiting-time).
Corona used an electronic timekeeping system that rounded clock-in/out times to the nearest quarter hour; plaintiffs allege the rounding practice systematically underpaid RNs.
The district court denied class certification for multiple reasons: plaintiffs lacked admissible evidence of individual injuries (typicality), Spriggs was not an adequate representative, proposed class counsel were inadequate, and several classes failed Rule 23(b)(3) predominance.
On appeal plaintiffs challenged denial of certification for the rounding-time, regular-rate, wage-statement, and waiting-time classes; the Ninth Circuit stayed proceedings earlier pending related California decisions.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of certification for the rounding-time, regular-rate, wage-statement, and waiting-time classes (except it agreed Spriggs was not a class member), holding the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence solely because it might be inadmissible and by misapplying California law on compensable time and §226 damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court may exclude evidence at class-cert stage as inadmissible	Sali argued the court may consider Ruiz (paralegal) analysis and plaintiffs’ declarations to show typicality; admissibility is not required at this preliminary stage	Corona argued Ruiz’s declaration and spreadsheets were inadmissible lay/expert testimony and unauthenticated hearsay	Court: Evidence need not be admissible at class-certification stage; striking Ruiz solely for inadmissibility was legal error and abused discretion
Whether named plaintiff Spriggs is an adequate class representative	Spriggs sought to represent classes including full‑time RNs	Corona noted Spriggs was not classified full‑time and thus not a class member	Court: Spriggs is not an adequate representative because she is not in the class she seeks to represent, but Sali remains adequate so certification need not fail for that reason
Whether proposed class counsel (Bisnar Chase) are adequate	Plaintiffs said counsel had substantial class-action experience and had litigated extensively	Corona and the district court pointed to counsel’s procedural lapses, missed depositions, sanctions, and problematic declarations	Court: District court prematurely found counsel inadequate; record shows substantial work and qualifications, though court may consider misconduct going forward
Whether individual issues predominate for rounding-time class under Rule 23(b)(3)	Plaintiffs: Rounding practice and employer control issues are amenable to class‑wide proof; See’s Candy/Cal. law allow class resolution of compensable time when employer control/systemic policy exists	Corona: Whether employees were “actually working” during grace periods is individualized (employees may be off‑task) so individualized proof predominates	Court: District court misinterpreted California law—compensable time includes time employees are under employer control; employer‑control questions are amenable to classwide proof; predominance analysis improperly focused on individualized activity and thus was erroneous
Whether individual issues predominate for wage-statement (§226) class	Plaintiffs: §226 violation (wrong employer name) causes per se injury where employee cannot promptly determine legal employer—amenable to class treatment	Corona: Each employee must prove they were damaged by each inaccurate paystub, creating individualized inquiries	Court: §226 creates a per se injury for failure to provide required employer identity; damages are statutory and uniform per violation, so individualized damage inquiries do not defeat predominance

Key Cases Cited

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (class-cert requirements and rigorous analysis)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (predominance and damages must align with classwide proof)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (burden of proof varies by stage of litigation)
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (admissibility and weight of expert evidence at certification)
Yokoyama v. Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087 (abuse-of-discretion standard for certification)
Parra v. Bashas', Inc., 536 F.3d 975 (standard of review for class certification)
In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 881 F.3d 679 (Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) prerequisites discussion)
See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal.App.4th 889 (California law on permissible rounding policies)
Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (California compensable-time and employer-control principles)