61 Cal.App.5th 897
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- The La Jolla Group (LJG) acted as a broker between campaigns/PACs and individual signature gatherers, who signed independent‑contractor agreements and were paid per signature.
- Plaintiffs (two named gatherers) sued claiming misclassification under Dynamex’s ABC test (relying on the B prong) and alleged multiple wage‑and‑hour violations: minimum wage, overtime, meal/rest breaks, expense reimbursement, timely final wages, and itemized wage statements, plus a UCL claim.
- LJG admitted in discovery it did not pay minimum wage/overtime, provide meal/rest breaks, reimburse expenses, or issue itemized wage statements because it treated gatherers as independent contractors.
- The trial court denied class certification, finding individual issues predominated and class treatment was not superior, and later denied reconsideration.
- On appeal, the court affirmed denial of certification for all claims except the Labor Code §226 (itemized wage statements) claim, which it reversed and remanded for further consideration of class certification limited to that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common questions predominate and class action is superior for plaintiffs’ wage‑and‑hour claims generally | Misclassification under Dynamex (B prong) is the common, overarching issue; individual damage proof doesn’t defeat class treatment | Gatherers’ work practices vary widely (hours, multiple brokers, pay rates, locations), so liability requires individualized proof | Affirmed: common issues do not predominate for most wage‑and‑hour claims; class action not superior |
| Liability for overtime, minimum wage, and meal/rest break claims | Misclassification establishes entitlement; hours/damages can be proved by representative evidence or signature records | Liability depends on individual hours and whether employer policy caused unpaid overtime or missed breaks | Affirmed: individual issues of liability predominate (no uniform policy proven) |
| Reimbursement of business expenses and final wage timing claims | Misclassification implies classwide liability; common proof feasible | Reimbursement/final wages require proof each expense was incurred for LJG work and employer knew; final wages triggered only on individual separations | Affirmed: individual issues predominate; class not superior |
| Itemized wage statement (Lab. Code §226) claim | LJG admitted it does not provide itemized wage statements; if gatherers are employees, §226 liability is classwide | LJG raised manageability/superiority concerns but conceded lack of statements if employee status established | Reversed in part: trial court abused discretion by denying class certification as to §226; remand to reconsider certification of that claim alone |
Key Cases Cited
- Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018) (established ABC test for employee classification; B prong focuses on whether worker performs work outside usual course of employer’s business)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (class certification standards and community‑of‑interest factors)
- Duran v. U.S. Bank N.A., 59 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2014) (predominance inquiry; common liability issues may support certification but individual liability questions can defeat it)
- Sotelo v. MediaNews Group, Inc., 207 Cal.App.4th 639 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (misclassification alone does not automatically establish classwide liability without a uniform employer policy)
- McCleery v. Allstate Insurance Co., 37 Cal.App.5th 434 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (plaintiffs’ trial plan must address individualized issues; employment status alone may not resolve liability)
- Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc., 40 Cal.App.5th 1131 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (misclassification can be an overarching inquiry supporting certification in appropriate factual settings)
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000) (appellate review defers to trial court’s stated reasons for certification rulings; errors in legal assumptions require reversal)
- Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center, 909 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2018) (reversing denial of class certification as to wage‑statement claim where statement omissions were uniform)
- Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management, 13 Cal.App.5th 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (individual issues may predominate absent evidence of uniform employer practice)
- Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 762 (Cal. 2020) (wage‑averaging principles for piece‑rate pay; averaging generally permissible except where borrowing is used to cover different task categories)