Perhaps some will view the US Supreme Court's ruling in Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter as a surprise in the Court's jurisprudence in class actions. Between cases like Stolt-Nielsen and Concepcion the general perception of the Supreme Court in class action cases has been hostile to employees and consumers who find themselves in conflict with employers or businesses.
Leyva v. Medline Industries, Inc.
In Leyva v. Medline Industries, Inc., a Central District's denial of class certification was overturned this week by the Ninth Circuit. In Leyva, the putative class was a group of employees working at Medline's warehouses. The class action alleged that Medline improperly rounded their start times that resulted in class members not being paid for time worked and that bonuses were not incorporated into class members' regular rate calculation.
A Bad Week For Safeway
When it rains it pours. And for Safeway they've been on the bad side of two decisions with large implications in class actions.
Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors
Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc.
The California Appellate Court continues to strengthen its jurisprudence for meal and rest break class actions in the wake of Brinker. In Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., the Appellate Court reversed its prior order affirming the trial court's denial of certification of meal and rest break claims. The previous opinion focused on the employer's use of on-duty meal agreements with the putative class of security guards.
Petersen v. Boeing Company
I missed an interesting decision out of the Ninth Circuit in April. In Petersen v. Boeing Company, the Ninth Circuit confronted an interesting issue regarding arbitration clauses. Plaintiff was hired as a flight instructor by a subsidiary of Boeing in Saudi Arabia.
Kilgore v. KeyBank
The Ninth Circuit in an en banc panel punted on an interesting question of law confronting numerous high courts dealing with class actions and arbitration agreements that contain waivers of class actions: to what extent does Concepcion v. AT&T apply in when forcing a party into individual arbitrations results in the individual essentially having to give up any right to seek recourse.
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczk
If a Supreme Court decision is handed down, but has no real world effect, does it make a sound?
