How to File a Motion for Wage & Hour Class Certification

Useful Rulings on Motion for Wage & Hour Class Certification

Recent Rulings on Motion for Wage & Hour Class Certification

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

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

JASON CIRRINCIONE VS AMERICAN SCISSOR LIFT, INC.

Plaintiff Jason Cirrincione has filed a motion for class certification in this case. The parties have filed timely opposition and reply briefs. As further set forth below, the motion is DENIED. As a threshold matter, each party has raised objections to the other party’s evidence in support of the motion. The court rules on those objection as follows: Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s evidence are all OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

  • Judge

    Michael Mulvihill

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

FIESER VS BITCHIN INC [E-FILE]

The court denied a motion for class certification, denied a renewed motion for class certification, and addressed several discovery disputes. ROA 35-36, 85, 146. Experience and views of counsel. The experience of counsel is not related in the moving papers. Presence of a governmental participant.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HERNANDEZ VS SPECTRUM SECURITY SERVICES INC [E-FILE]

Conclusion The motion for class certification is GRANTED. The Class is defined as current and former employees who were classified as non-exempt and who were employed between September 27, 2014 until 45 days before the first designated trial date.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HERNANDEZ VS SPECTRUM SECURITY SERVICES INC [E-FILE]

Conclusion The motion for class certification is GRANTED. The Class is defined as current and former employees who were classified as non-exempt and who were employed between September 27, 2014 until 45 days before the first designated trial date.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LOPEZ VS. BUFFALO WILD WINGS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

However, on January 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. (ROA 330.) II. Special Interrogatories Per Defendants’ separate statement (ROA 319), they seek further responses to special interrogatories 2, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, and 29, each of which asks Plaintiff to identify documents relevant to class certification. From the Court’s review of the papers, the response to each interrogatory appears identical.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

CIPRIANO PONCE V. AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES

The trial court, however, also found that any amendment to add a new class representative would be futile due to the other problems with the motion for class certification, i.e., that individual issues predominated. (Id. at p. 851.) Defendants have not shown any such futility here; and that combined with the contentious discovery history distinguishes this case from the facts presented in CSI.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

YESENIA FUERTE VS. GRAYBILL MEDICAL GROUP INC [E-FILE]

Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted as to plaintiff's claims, and the following classes are certified: 1. Flex Overtime Class: "All hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendant at any time between May 8, 2010, and January 31, 2015 who Defendant programmed in the payroll system as flex employees and were not compensated at an overtime rate of pay for all hours worked over 8 hours up to 12 hours in a day." 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DIAZ VS BALD EAGLE SECURITY SERVICES INC [E-FILE]

The motion for class certification, filed by plaintiff Adrian Diaz, is granted in part as set forth below. Preliminary Matters E-filed exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with hyperlinks to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit. Rule of Court, 3.1110(f)(4). Plaintiff did not comply with this rule. See, ROA # 36. Merely labeling exhibits is not the same as bookmarking and is insufficient.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Instead, Alakozai discusses issues with regard to a motion for class certification. The Swissport Defendants also contend, in a footnote, that they previously met and conferred with Plaintiffs counsel regarding the matter and offered not to seek a stay if the instant action, the Avila Action, and a subsequent filed action by Plaintiffs’ attorneys were “narrowed to the positions/locations of the plaintiffs,” rather than brought as PAGA actions. (Motion, 2, fn. 3; Yudelson Decl. ¶ 7, Exhibit 6.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

12 CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL WAGE AND HOUR

(Unfair 8 Competition/Unfair Business Practices). 9 On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff Adrian Turner’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for class certification 10 was argued before the Court. The Court found Plaintiff” s rounding claim and split shift 11 premium claim were not alleged in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the operative pleading 12 at the time.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

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

Accordingly, the motion for class certification is DENIED. 23 The Court does not reach the other requirements for class certification. 24 25 The Court will prepare the final order if this tentative ruling is not contested. 26 Plaintiff also submits several deposition transcript excerpts. TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 1 NOTICE: The Court does not provide court reporters for proceedings in the complex civil 2 litigation departments.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2019

PLATA, ET AL. V. CITY OF SAN JOSE

TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 1 accomplished efficiently and manageably in a class setting. (Dailey v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

XUEHUA WANG, ET AL. V. ART OF REFLEXOLOGY MILPITAS, LLC, ET AL.

Stewart explained that his statement regarding opt- outs was based on his review of the evidence filed in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for class certification, and that he did not personally communicate with any of the class members. The evidence Mr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

LIDIA CARBAJAL ET AL. VS IMPERIAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC. ET AL.

Conclusion The motion for class certification is DENIED. Michael J. Mulvihill Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

  • Judge

    Michael Mulvihill

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

12 CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL WAGE AND HOUR

for class certification 10 was argued before the Court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

KLETTE VS BALBOA CORPORATION

This is particularly the case in the context of an unopposed motion for class certification where Mr. Thompson will serve as a class representative. Absent class members are entitled to know the terms of his individual settlement so they may evaluate potential objections to his adequacy as a representative Plaintiff. The Clerk is ordered to publicly file the unredacted version of the Kwak Declaration and all attachments. Furthermore, as discussed in more detail below, Plaintiffs are to publicly file Mr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

STILWELL V. FIRST ALARM

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of the Memorandum of Points and 3 Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification filed in this action on 4 November 4, 2016, in addition to five orders issued by the Court related to class certification and 5 discovery in this action. 6 The Court can take judicial notice of court records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) 7 Accordingly, Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. 8 III.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.