41 Cal.App.5th 1060
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Williams sued Impax in 2017 alleging a UCL class action based on multiple Labor Code violations (overtime, meal/rest breaks, minimum wage) on behalf of employees from the prior four years.
- Impax moved to strike the class allegations, arguing Williams was not an adequate class representative because the statute of limitations had run on her direct Labor Code/PAGA penalty claims.
- In December 2017 the trial court struck the class allegations, concluded Williams could not adequately represent the class, gave 45 days leave to amend to add a new class representative, and denied discovery to locate other class members.
- Williams did not appeal the December 2017 order. She filed a first amended complaint re-pleading class allegations but did not add a new plaintiff. Impax moved to strike again.
- On September 21, 2018 the trial court again struck the class allegations and refused to extend time to locate a new plaintiff. Williams appealed from the September 2018 order invoking the death knell doctrine.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction: the December 2017 order was the death knell appealable order and Williams’s failure to appeal it forfeited appellate review of the class-striking ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sept. 2018 order striking class allegations is appealable under the death knell doctrine | Sept. 2018 order was the definitive demolition of class claims and is appealable | The December 2017 order was the death knell; Williams forfeited appeal by not appealing then | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the December 2017 order was the appealable death knell and was not appealed |
| Whether Williams was an adequate class representative | Williams contends trial court erred in finding her inadequate and should not resolve adequacy at pleading stage | Impax says Williams lacked standing to pursue penalty claims and thus is inadequate | Court did not reach the merits because appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the court wrongly prevented discovery of the class list needed to find another rep | Williams says trial court thwarted discovery and thus prevented naming a new representative | Impax says discovery scope depends on complaint and court properly limited discovery pending pleadings | Court declined to reach the discovery dispute because it lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying order |
| Whether this appeal should be treated as an extraordinary writ petition | Williams asked court to treat the appeal as a writ due to alleged conflict in authority | Impax opposed converting the appeal to a writ | Court declined to exercise discretion to treat appeal as writ; no unusual circumstances shown |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baycol Cases I & II, 51 Cal.4th 751 (death knell doctrine standards)
- Stephen v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 235 Cal.App.3d 806 (one-shot appeal principle for death knell orders)
- Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal.2d 695 (origin of death knell concept)
- Alch v. Superior Court, 122 Cal.App.4th 339 (order striking class allegations with leave to amend can be a death knell)
- Safaie v. Jacuzzi Whirlpool Bath, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1160 (effects of decertification/striking class allegations)
- Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, 209 Cal.App.4th 556 (distinguishing non-appealable denial without prejudice of class certification)
- Farwell v. Sunset Mesa Property Owners Assn., Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 1545 (limits of death knell doctrine; defendant-class context)