How to File a Motion for Wage & Hour Class Certification

Useful Resources for Motion for Wage & Hour Class Certification

Recent Rulings on Motion for Wage & Hour Class Certification

RAUL ACEVES, ET AL. V. LEGACY PARTNERS, INC., ET AL.

At a case management conference on June 19, 2020, the Court scheduled the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification for March 26, 2021. In July 2020, a dispute developed concerning whether Plaintiffs’ depositions would be conducted in person or remotely in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

FLORES V. ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC.

(Id. at p. 326.) 21 Under the circumstances presented here, where it is not apparent from the face of the 22 pleadings or judicially-noticeable materials whether the class definitions are defective, it is more 23 appropriate to defer the certification decision until an evidentiary motion for class certification 24 can be heard.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

TIMOTHY MCCLEERY ET AL VS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

The court has twice denied class certification, which plaintiffs appealed on both occasions, the most recent appeal resulting in a published opinion affirming the trial court’s order denying the motion for class certification. (See McCleery v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 434.) Thus, as it stands, the individual plaintiffs named in the operative complaint are prosecuting this action solely on their own behalf.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LANDA V. CHRISTOPHER RANCH, LLC, ET AL.

(See Declaration of Natalia Ramirez in Support 3 of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, Ex. 5 (Declaration of Aaron [Woolfson] in Support 4 of Plaintiff[’]s Motion for Class Certification, ¶¶ 45-47.) Woolfson states that he did not include 5 grower location 89 in his declaration in support of Plaintiff’s first motion for class certification, 6 but has included it here for completeness.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

LOMELI VS. BURGER LOUNGE III, LLC

In short, Belonia was required to file a traditional motion for class certification by November 2. He failed to do so. 2. The Class Allegations Are Properly Struck Defendants argue the class allegations are properly dismissed or struck under the Court’s inherent power to control proceedings before it. The Court ordered a motion for class certification by a date certain, and Belonia failed to file one.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

TERESA VARGAS PEREZ VS THE PARSONS GROUP INC

Without settlement, additional discovery would be required, as well as a motion for class certification, which defendant would oppose by asserting that numerous individualized fact issues exist which outweigh any common issues, and that the action is not manageable on a class-wide basis. Further, even if the class was certified, significant risks would remain, including defendant’s assertion of defenses which could cause a jury to reject or reduce the damages sought.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

HASHEM BAREKZAI VS CHEMICAL TRANSFER COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff Hashem Barekzai has filed a motion for class certification as to his claims against Defendant Chemical Transfer Company, Inc. The parties have filed timely opposition and reply briefs. As more fully set forth below, the motion is DENIED. I. DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE: As a threshold matter, the court rules as follows on Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s evidence: Declaration of Hashem Barekzai Objection No. 1 is OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

SOLORZANO VS. T&J FRESH CO.

Plaintiff Luis Solorzano’s motion for class certification is DENIED without prejudice. Although Plaintiff’s claims are based on the alleged uniform application of facially invalid policies, the analysis of liability depends on individualized evidence and Plaintiff is not an adequate class representative.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

RAUB VS SYNERGY ONE LENDING INCORPORATED [EFILE]

As such, plaintiff asserts that had the case not settled, defendant would have "vigorously opposed" any motion for class certification. Id. at 7:17. B. Avoided Expenses and Other Avoided Risks: The court incorporates part 4.B. of the minutes from July 17, 2020. ROA 44. C. Amount Offered in Settlement/Settlement Fund: Gross Settlement: The gross settlement amount is $400,000.00, no reversion. Net settlement: $227,535.28. The average payout will be $3,346.11. (Alcantara Decl., ¶¶ 11-12.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LANDA V. CHRISTOPHER RANCH, LLC, ET AL.

(Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 16 Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, p. 4:14.) 17 “The party seeking certification has the burden to establish the existence of … an 18 ascertainable class.” (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

CHRISTOPHER ESTRADA VS SAMEDAY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

This even exceeds the more generous 20-page limit for class certification motions set forth in CRC Rule 3.764(c)(2): “An opening or responding memorandum filed in support of or in opposition to a motion for class certification must not exceed 20 pages. . . . The provisions of rule 3.1113 otherwise apply.” (Bold emphasis and underlining added.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AZEEZ VS SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC [EFILE]

Defendant is ordered to produce the names and contact information which are relevant to determine whether there is sufficient similarity between plaintiff and the putative class with regard to the motion for class certification. It is irrelevant plaintiff only worked there four months because he allegedly stands in a representative capacity.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AZEEZ VS SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC [EFILE]

Defendant is ordered to produce the names and contact information which are relevant to determine whether there is sufficient similarity between plaintiff and the putative class with regard to the motion for class certification. It is irrelevant plaintiff only worked there four months because he allegedly stands in a representative capacity.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SMITH V. THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION (SEIU), LOCAL 521

denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. 8 Plaintiff passed away on January 2, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

ACOSTA VS. REMINGTON LODGING

HEARING ON MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FILED BY RINA ACOSTA * TENTATIVE RULING: * In this motion for class certification (“Motion”), plaintiff Rina Acosta (“Plaintiff” or “Acosta”) seeks to certify three proposed classes, two of which include three subclasses, of current or former hourly non-exempt employees of Defendant Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC (“Defendant” or “Remington”), who have worked at Remington’s California hotels since December 20, 2012. (Motion at 1:24-26.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

HENRY CARDIEL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS MILLERCOORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE

Investigation and Discovery Sufficient to Allow Counsel and the Courts to Act Intelligently Yeremian attests that the parties conducted informal discovery and exchanged details regarding the claims and defenses and the items Plaintiff believed were required to file a motion for class certification or a motion for summary judgment for the PAGA claim and to complete a constructive and meaningful mediation. (Yeremian Decl. ¶ 28.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LUCIANNA BORREGO VS. RALEYS FAMILY OF FINE STORES

Since this case was initiated in 2015, Class Counsel has conducted fact investigation and interviews with potential class members, drafting pleadings, opposing demurrers and motions to strike, engaging in extensive written discovery, involvement in taking or defending nearly 30 depositions, litigating cross-motions regarding the form of a Belaire-West notice and two motions to compel discovery, filing a motion for class certification, preparing for and attending mediation and negotiating settlement, as well

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LUCIANNA BORREGO VS. RALEYS FAMILY OF FINE STORES

Since this case was initiated in 2015, Class Counsel has conducted fact investigation and interviews with potential class members, drafting pleadings, opposing demurrers and motions to strike, engaging in extensive written discovery, involvement in taking or defending nearly 30 depositions, litigating cross-motions regarding the form of a Belaire-West notice and two motions to compel discovery, filing a motion for class certification, preparing for and attending mediation and negotiating settlement, as well

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NAJERA VS. TOPH I, LLC

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is GRANTED as set forth below. “The party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

RONALD BALANAG, ET AL. V. LAPTALO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

On November 28, 2017, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as to the following class: All individuals who have been employed by defendant LAPTALO ENTERPRISES, INC. as non-exempt machinists, machine operators, welders, shipping clerks, customer service representatives, administrative assistants, or painters at defendant’s factory on Zanker Road in San Jose, California at any time from March 14, 2012 to the present, excluding individuals who have executed a release of the claims in this

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

PANIAGUA V BRODER BROS.

Drogin’s declaration was offered for the second motion for class certification and preliminary approval of settlement, and the costs for $5,737.50 for his firm are therefore appropriate. The costs for “Robert A. Parris, PC” as an “expert” are not. Mr. Parris appears to be an attorney in Lancaster, thus his work would constitute attorney work for which fees might be awarded. However, no notice was given to the class that fees would be split with him and thus such fees cannot come from the class fund.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CIPRIANO PONCE V. CARLOS FARIAS

Farias does not directly address that argument, but instead replies that “to the extent this new motion does not satisfy the strict requirements of section 1008 … there is nothing that prohibits Plaintiff from bringing a new motion for class certification of the meal break theories.” (Reply, p. 2, ll. 15-17.) Whether Farias is entitled to file a new motion for class certification is not the issue pending before the Court.

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2020

MILNER VS BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION [E-FILE]

Third, the court would prefer to address class certification in the usual manner – a fully briefed noticed motion for class certification, presumably with opposition briefing as well. As the case law summarized above makes clear, the factors the court must consider in connection with class certification require a factual inquiry, and the motion to strike does not allow this. Counsel should attend the CMC ready to assist the court in setting the motion for class certification on calendar.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MILNER VS BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION [E-FILE]

Third, the court would prefer to address class certification in the usual manner – a fully briefed noticed motion for class certification, presumably with opposition briefing as well. As the case law summarized above makes clear, the factors the court must consider in connection with class certification require a factual inquiry, and the motion to strike does not allow this. Counsel should attend the CMC ready to assist the court in setting the motion for class certification on calendar.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MILNER VS BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION [E-FILE]

Second, the court would prefer to address class certification in the usual manner – a fully briefed noticed motion for class certification, presumably with opposition briefing as well. As the case law summarized above makes clear, the factors the court must consider in connection with class certification require a factual inquiry, and the motion to strike does not allow this. Counsel should attend the CMC ready to assist the court in setting the motion for class certification on calendar.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 15     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.