The district court refused to certify the class because, although there were common questions, the individualized assessments of which employees were entitled to damages, and how much, outweighed the common issues.
The Ninth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion. The court explained that individual damage assessments do not defeat class certification if liability can be determined via common proof.
Of note, the court distinguished the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Comcast Corp. v.Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1435 (2013):
In Comcast, the Supreme Court reversed an order granting class certification because the plaintiffs relied on a regression model that “did not isolate damages resulting from any one theory of antitrust impact.” Id. at 1431. The Court concluded that “a model purporting to serve as evidence of damages in this class action must measure only those damages attributable to that theory.” Id. at 1433.
Here, unlike in Comcast, if putative class members prove Medline’s liability, damages will be calculated based on the wages each employee lost due to Medline’s unlawful testimony of Medline’s director of payroll operations, andMedline’s Notice of Removal. Those documents show that
Medline’s computerized payroll and time-keeping database would enable the court to accurately calculate damages and related penalties for each claim.
So, this case will proceed as a class action, and the Comcast decision does not preclude class certification when there are individual damages issues, when there is a reliable way of establishing each class member's damages.
This case is Leyva v. Medline Industries, Inc. and the opinion is here.
