California Court of Appeal: Class Action Should Have Been Certified

After the California Supreme Court's decision in Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, a trial court's decision on class certification should not be disturbed if (1) the trial court applies the correct legal standard and (2) substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings regarding the factors supporting class certification. In Aguiar v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, the Court of Appeal recited this "abuse of discretion" standard of review, and then proceeded to hold the trial court did not decide the certification question correctly.

The plaintiffs accused Cintas of violating Los Angeles County's Living Wage Ordinance by failing to provide the class with the legally mandated pay and benefits. Cintas argued that the case was not amenable to class certification because the plaintiffs were inadequate representatives, common issues did not predominate over individual ones, and class procedures would not be superior to other means of recovering. These are all proper factors for a trial court to consider under the legal framework for deciding class certification issues.

So, was it that substantial evidence did not support the trial court's finding? Hard to say. It appears the Court simply disagreed with the class certification order and decided it the other way. This is precisely what the Court of Appeal did in Sav-On, which is why the Supreme Court imposed the deferential standard of review.

The appellate court in Cintas decided that the trial court should have divided up the putative class into sub-classes, which would have ameliorated the commonality concerns. The court also held that class actions would be superior to individual actions for this type of case.

This case involves an allegation of a failure to apply a relatively simple law properly to a large group. Therefore, the common facts may well be more prevalent than in a more fact-intensive case such as involving exemptions from overtime.

DGV