Suarez v. Bank of America N.A., 3:18-cv-01202-LB

Plaintiffs (Bank of America non-exempt employees) sued under California law for off-the-clock work and missed meal/rest breaks, and asserted derivative claims (waiting-time penalties, wage statements, UCL).
The court initially certified narrowed classes: Treasury Services Advisors (call centers) for off-the-clock and break claims, and Assistant Managers (financial centers) for off-the-clock claims only.
Bank of America moved for reconsideration, arguing the plaintiffs never advanced or proved the de facto policies the court relied on; the court granted reconsideration.
Plaintiffs’ certification theory relied on alleged de facto, system-wide policies forcing pre-/post-shift work and performance goals that made breaks impossible.
On reconsideration the court found no "significant proof" of de facto policies; evidence showed variation by manager and existing formal policies requiring breaks, making adjudication individualized.
Result: the court denied class certification for the proposed classes and denied plaintiffs’ renewed motion to disqualify Bank counsel and to strike declarations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of a de facto policy causing off-the-clock work	Bank had de facto policies that made pre-/post-shift work unavoidable for class members	No uniform policy; written policies prohibit off-the-clock work and practices vary by manager	No significant proof of a de facto policy; commonality not met
Existence of a de facto policy preventing meal/rest breaks	System-wide performance goals and implementation made taking breaks impossible	Bank had formal break policies and managers instructed employees to take breaks; no uniform bar to breaks	No significant proof of a de facto breaks policy; individualized issues predominate
Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)	Common issues (de facto policies) predominate and support class adjudication	Without a common unlawful policy, claims require individualized proof and predominate	Predominance not established; individualized questions defeat class treatment
Certification of derivative claims and procedural motions	Derivative claims should be certified with main claims; plaintiffs opposed counsel-disqualification and motion to strike declarations	Derivative claims depend on proof of primary class claims; Bank sought reconsideration of certification	Derivative claims' class certification fails with primary claims; motion to disqualify/strike denied

Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258 (Rule 23 prerequisites must be proved, not merely pled)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (plaintiff must show significant proof of a company-wide policy for class treatment)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (predominance requirement and rigorous analysis at certification)
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans and Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (limits free-ranging merits inquiries at certification)
Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125 (a single common question can satisfy commonality; focus on common answers)
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (rigorous analysis and resolution of factual disputes about pattern-or-practice for class certification)
Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161 (class certified where employer discouraged overtime reporting as an unofficial policy)
Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture, 824 F.3d 1150 (class issues where employer uniformly required unpaid job duties)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (predominance and class cohesion principles)
Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 993 F.3d 774 (plaintiff must prove predominance by a preponderance)