CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY FOR CLASS ACTIONS

Experienced Sacramento Class Action Lawyers at Labor Law Office

Our office handles class actions. We routinely file cases against major companies for failing to follow California’s wage laws requiring overtime pay, meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements, prompt payment upon termination and other Labor Code violations. A class action is a lawsuit that allows a large number of persons to have their claims decided in one court action. In a class action, the plaintiff serves as a “class representative” and represents the interests of other persons who are 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 single plaintiff or a few representatives of the class actually appear in court. This is more efficient for the courts, which are typically overburdened with cases. Class treatment can enable employees to recover money without hiring their own lawyer.

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

  1. Numerous class members: there must be enough people to justify bringing the suit as a class, rather than having each person filing their own case. Class actions have been brought with as few as 20 or 30 class members and as many as millions.
  2. 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 failure to pay overtime compensation, etc.
  3. Similar claims or defenses: each member 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.
  4. The named class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class members: the plaintiff 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.

Class actions may be filed in state or federal court. Each court has their own procedural rules. After the case is filed, the parties engage in “discovery” and learn the facts. Then, a motion for class certification is filed with the court, which decides whether the case can proceed as a class action. If so, the class members are mailed a notice which allows them to “opt-out” of the action and bring their own case if they wish. Depending on the type of claims, class members may actually “opt-in”.

After the case is certified, the parties prepare for trial. Most class action cases settle before trial. If a settlement occurs, the class members are given notice of the settlement and the opportunity to participate in the settlement.

We have handled well over a hundred class actions against major companies for employees’ wages. For more information on class actions, please call the attorneys at Labor Law Office, APC.

What is a Class Action Lawsuit? | Labor Law Office

Sacramento / Elk Grove / North Highlands:

Labor Law Office, APC

2740 Fulton Avenue, Suite 220
Sacramento, CA 95821
Phone: (916) 446-4502 Link To Map

Fair Oaks / Roseville / Citrus Heights:

Labor Law Office, APC

5050 Sunrise Blvd., Suite C-1
Fair Oaks, CA 95628
Phone: (916) 965-3100
Link To Map

Redding / Anderson / Red Bluff:

Labor Law Office, APC

1650 Oregon Street, Suite 210
Redding, CA 96001
Phone: (530) 338-3808
Link To Map

Los Angeles / Anaheim / Burbank:

Labor Law Office, APC

529 S. Broadway, Suite 4045
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 900-4976
Link To Map

Chico / Yuba City / Paradise:

Labor Law Office, APC

1395 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 300
Chico, CA 95973
Phone: (530) 891-8503
Link To Map

Modesto / Turlock / Merced:

Labor Law Office, APC

801 10th Street, 5th Floor, Suite 108
Modesto, CA 95354
Phone: (209) 579-9706 Link To Map

Stockton / Mantica / Tracy:

Labor Law Office, APC

1145 N. California Street, Suite 202
Stockton, CA 95202
Phone: (209) 546-7473
Link To Map

Fresno / Madera / Bakersfield:

Labor Law Office, APC

1525 E. Shaw Avenue, 2nd Floor, Suite F
Fresno, CA 93710
Phone: (559) 441-1314 Link To Map

Fairfield / Vacaville / Vallejo:

Labor Law Office, APC

622 Jackson Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
Phone: (707) 639-8563 Link To Map

San Francisco / Oakland / Santa Rosa:

Labor Law Office, APC

345 Grove Street, 2nd Floor. Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 403-2530
Link To Map
Sitemap
Schedule Your
Free Case Evaluation
michael carver super lawyersfive-stars-reviews
Google-e1485020776645five-stars-reviews
FacebookFind-e1485020762887five-stars-reviews

Best Way To Reply:
PhoneEmail

Please leave this field empty.

Disclaimer: This testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Testimonials are not intended to imply that the same results can be obtained for other clients in similar matters. The facts of every case are different.

Avvo

California Employment Lawyers Association

LA County bar Association

Sacramento County Bar Association

Michael L. Carver

Related Posts About Class Action Law in California

2210, 2016

Ninth Circuit Finds California Company Can’t Force Employees To Give Up Right To File Employee Class Action Claims

In many employment contracts there lies an inconspicuous provision that many employees would never notice. It is known as an ‘arbitration agreement”. This clause states that by signing the agreement, the employee gives up his or her right to sue the employer in a class action lawsuit. Instead, the employee agrees to settle differences with the employer out of court in an arbitration proceeding, without a judge or jury. Across the country, courts have been split on whether or not they will enforce these contracts. [...]

2208, 2016

Class Action Lawsuit Accuses California State Agency of Systemic Gender Discrimination

A group of California women have filed a discrimination lawsuit against the entire California workers’ compensation system, alleging widespread and systemic discrimination in the way women are compensated for injuries that occur at work. The case, Page et al. v. Parisotto et al. alleges that the workers’ compensation system routinely attributes work-related injuries to the pre-existing condition of being female. For instance, one plaintiff states that her chronic carpal tunnel syndrome from years of typing at a computer was dismissed by the workers’ compensation evaluator [...]

808, 2016

Can Employees Waive Their Right to Bring A Class Action Lawsuit?

It is not uncommon for an employment contract to include various terms that dictate how disputes between an employer and an employee should be resolved. Many employment agreements contain arbitration clauses that force workers to settle most types of disputes outside of court in front of a neutral arbitrator. The contract may also dictate which state’s law governs any disputes and which court will have the power to hear any lawsuit. Employers include these terms to make it easier on themselves in case they are [...]

203, 2016

Bank of America Latest to Settle Class Action Suit for Allegedly Misclassified Employees as Exempt

We can now count Bank of America as the latest company in a string to reach major settlements in claims of allegedly misclassifying employees as exempt from wage and hour laws.  A federal magistrate judge recently approved a $2.25 million settlement against the financial giant. Federal and California law require that employees who are covered by overtime laws receive premium pay, in the form of time-and-a-half, whenever their hours worked exceed 40 in a workweek.  Only employees who are legitimately exempt from these laws do [...]

211, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court to Clarify Collective Action Certifications in Overtime Case

Lawsuits alleging unlawful treatment of employees by their employers often involve groups of employees who have been subjected to the same practice. These are known as both class-actions and collective actions. In these cases, there are typically one or more class representatives who have filed the suits and who identify groups of people who have the same claims for damages. One of the requirements for a class or collective action to move forward through the process is that the presiding court must "certify the class." [...]

1610, 2015

Top Four Employment Cases to Watch in the United States Supreme Court

There are four cases worth watching in the upcoming term of the United States Supreme Court that may affect aspects of the employer/employee relationship: Eligibility of wage and hour lawsuits for collective (class) action status; The timeline for filing a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; The ability of unions to collect fees from non-union public employees; and An employee’s ability to sue over a credit report containing false information. The Court’s decision in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo will clarify whether [...]

2406, 2015

$3 Million Settlement as Result of Failure to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses

In April 2015, medical device company Stryker Corp. and its subsidiary Howmedica Osteonics Corp. settled a class action labor lawsuit for $3 million. The plaintiffs in the suit, Tanner Trosper v. Stryker Corporation, alleged Stryker and Howmedica violated California labor codes and unfair competition laws by failing to reimburse sales associates for business expenses. The settlement agreement was filed in a California federal court. The lead plaintiff in the case was Tanner Trosper. He worked as a sales representative for Howmedica from November 2008 through [...]

2004, 2015

Employers are Increasingly Requiring Employees to Waive Right to Bring Class Action

In 2011, the United States Supreme Court held in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that companies may ban consumers from participating in class actions. While that case involved consumers, lower courts and businesses have extended the ruling to cover employees as well. Consequently, more companies are requiring employees to arbitrate serious complaints and adding provisions to employment agreements that bar employees from bringing class actions lawsuits. Not surprisingly, the decision has also lead to a drop in class action suits accusing corporations of discrimination, wage theft, [...]

601, 2015

Wal-Mart Loses $151 Million Employment Law Case

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a $151 million jury award against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The case involved allegation of wage theft against the retail giant. Wage theft refers to the practice of employers illegally withholding wages or denying benefits that are rightfully owed to an employee. On appeal, Wal-Mart argued that the court should have required more than 187,000 plaintiff workers to testify individually about the damages they suffered due to their wage-theft claims. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed with the retail store’s argument and upheld [...]

2608, 2014

LinkedIn Will Pay Millions in Overtime Back Wages

The U.S. Department of Labor has announced that LinkedIn Corp. has agreed to pay $3.3 million in overtime back wages and $2.5 million in liquidated damages to 359 workers in California, Illinois, Nebraska and New York. All over the country, employers are working “off the clock,” without pay or overtime. This practice harms workers, denies them the wages they have rightfully earned and takes away time with families. The Department of Labor is suggesting that other companies review their policies to make sure this is [...]

2307, 2014

Proving Class Action Cases at Trial Using Statistics

A class, or group, of loan officers sued for overtime, alleging they were unfairly classified as exempt from it as outside salespeople. (This rule applies to people who spent more than half their time selling outside the office.) The trial used a sampling of statistical information and the testimony of 21 employees, chosen randomly, and then extrapolated those results to stand for the hundreds of people involved, rather than having each individual in the class have to testify. The Defendant, U.S. Bank National Association, was [...]

2904, 2014

Working Off The Clock Brings Two Insurance Adjuster Cases to Appeal

Employees can be in a tough spot when they have to get their jobs done, but aren’t supposed to have overtime. Two recent Court of Appeals decisions involving insurance adjusters who alleged they worked “off-the-clock” illustrate that point. In Williams v. Superior Court, whether or not class should be certified has been decided three separate times. First, the trial court granted class certification on the issue of whether or not Allstate adjusters worked “off the clock” doing things such as logging into computers. Then they [...]

2704, 2014

“Mini-trials” Argument Suffers A Loss

In class action cases, the class certification motion is extremely important. It means the court thinks that Plaintiff can address the claims of many people, with just one lawsuit. In cases where the amounts of damages are comparatively small, it can mean the difference between being able to get a lawyer, and not being able to get one, in some situations. It’s not unusual for defendants to oppose such motions by arguing that each individual Class Member had different enough work circumstances to merit at [...]

2401, 2014

Denial of Class Certification Overturned after Brinker

Plaintiffs’ Josie Faulkinbury and William Levene appealed an order denying certification of a class of about 4,000 security guards they alleged were denied meal breaks and off-duty rest breaks, weren’t paid all reimbursements and weren’t paid the proper overtime rate due to failure to include non-discretionary bonus pay.  An earlier opinion affirmed class certification denial was proper due to potential individualized issues.  But that denial came before the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 [...]

1501, 2014

Insufficient Evidence to Support Trial Court Ruling Against Class Certification

A trial court’s denial of a Motion for Class Certification was reversed this month in case brought against Safeway, Inc. Plaintiff alleged Defendant failed to provide adequate paid rest periods, meal periods and wage statements. Ruling that insufficient evidence existed to support the trial court’s ruling that individualized issues predominated, the Third Appellate District ordered the trial court to grant the motion. Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (CA3 C066074 filed 5/8/13).

901, 2014

Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court Order Denying Class Certification

Holding that the District Court used the wrong legal standard, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order on May 28, 2013 stating that the lower court had abused its discretion in denying Class Certification to a putative class action brought on behalf of 538 employees with wage and hour issues. The lower court had held the class should not be certified because it required individual calculations as to damages. The higher panel said that shouldn’t stop the case from proceeding as a class [...]

2809, 2013

Class Action Trial Overturned

Defendant defeated class certification by arguing that a plan to try an action as a class deprived the defense of due process rights, because trying the case as a class denied Defendant from defending individual claims. Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn.

1604, 2013

Plaintiffs Win Hard Fought Certification Post Brinker

Plaintiffs filed a wage and hour class action against Networkers International LLC, alleging violations of wage and hour laws including overtime pay, meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs’ motion to certify was denied on the holding that Plaintiffs failed to show common factual and legal questions predominated over individual issues. On appeal, the court determined the trial court’s order was not an abuse of discretion. Then the Plaintiffs petitioned for review, and the California Supreme Court granted review and ordered the case held pending the Brinker [...]

2803, 2013

Class Certification Against Sears Denied

Plaintiff William Dailey sued on behalf of a class of managers and assistant managers of Sears auto centers, alleging that they violated California’s wage and hour laws. Dailey attempted to certify the class, alleging uniform policy and practice resulted in their treatment with regard to meal and rest breaks and overtime. The trial court granted Sears’ motion to preclude and denied Dailey’s motion to certify, because too many individual issues were involved. Dailey appealed, saying a more detailed explanation for the court’s ruling on certification [...]

1302, 2013

Denial of Class Certification Upheld

The trial court initially certified classes regarding meal period, waiting time penalty and check stub claims made by a class of employees. But after the Court of Appeal decisions in Brinker v. Superior Court (4/12/12) 53 Cal.4th and Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1278, the trial court granted the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration and denied certification on all issues. The California Supreme Court denied review and depublished the decision on January 16, 2013.