Class Actions

Our office has handled well over a hundred cases filed as class actions. A class action is a lawsuit that allows the issues for a large number of people to be decided in one court action. Oftentimes, by combining many claims into a single class action suit, class members with relatively small claims can have their rights protected economically. A class action plaintiff represents the interests of persons not before the court. As a result, not all potential class members must become parties to the lawsuit to have their rights decided. Typically, only a few representatives of the class actually appear in court.

In order to be certified as a class action, these general requirements must be satisfied:

  • Numerous class members.There must be enough people to justify bringing the suit as a class, rather than having each person participates as a named plaintiff. Class actions have been brought with as few as 20 or 30 people and as many as millions.
  • Common facts among the class members.There must be questions of law or facts common to the potential class members, meaning similar unlawful or unfair conduct by the defendants, such as violations of labor laws, failure to pay overtime compensation, etc.
  • Similar claims or defenses.Each person in the class must be making allegations typical to the other class members. The plaintiffs must show that common questions predominate over individual questions. If there are a lot of individualized issues among the potential class members, a class action may not be the best way to proceed.
  • Adequacy of Representation.The named class representatives must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class members. The named class member must have similar claims as the potential class members. The attorneys representing the case must also be adequate, and must be no conflicts of interest in representing the potential class members.

Some of our current class action cases include:

  • ADOLF v. LES SCHWAB TIRES; Improper payment and meal and rest violations.
  • BUTLER-MITCHELL, ET AL v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP; Insurance adjusters overtime claim.
  • DOLZ v. EVERGREEN AT GRIDLEY; Wrongful termination and wage and hour claims.
  • DUERST v. CARL’S JR.; Meal and rest period violations.
  • GOLDEN v. PAC PIZZA, LLC.; Improper payment and meal and rest break period violations, reimbursements.
  • HEAD v. AERO UNION CORPORATION; Pilots alleged breach of contract.
  • OWENS v. KRAFT; Improper payment, meal and rest period violations.
  • PAGNI v. TESORO WEST COAST COMPANY, LLC.; Meal and rest period violations.
  • QUEZADA v. CON-WAY WESTERN EXPRESS; Improper payment and missed rest breaks of truckers.

Some of our past class action cases included:

  • BRUTON v. ROUND TABLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; Meal and rest period violations.
  • CHARPENTIER v. FRITO-LAY; Meal and rest period violations.
  • CHATFIELD v. HERTZ LOCAL EDITION; It was alleged that Managers classified as exempt performed non-exempt duties and meal and rest period violations.
  • CUNNINGHAM v. AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES; This case involved the back charging of commissions to California Salespersons of cellular phones and services.
  • DENNO v. GMRI, INC.; It was alleged that Managers classified as exempt performed non-exempt duties and meal and rest period violations.
  • DUNBAR v. FREDERICKS OF HOLLYWOOD; It was alleged that Managers classified as exempt performed non-exempt duties and meal and rest period violations.
  • HERRON-ELZIE v. SPRINT; Overtime compensation sought for Billing analysts alleged misclassification as exempt when performing non-exempt duties.
  • MARTIN v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.; Meal and rest period violations.
  • McCLURE v. JOS A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.; Overtime compensation sought for Managers classified as exempt performed non-exempt duties.
  • SORENSON v. PETSMART, INC.; Meal and rest period violations and wage statements.
  • TAYLOR V. FEDEX FREIGHT WEST; Meal and rest period violations.
  • WESCOM v. BRINKS; Meal and rest period violations.