Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc., Inc., 216 Cal. App. 4th 220 (2013)
Plaintiffs sought to represent and certify a class of 4,000 current and former employees of Boyd & Associates, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California. Plaintiffs alleged that Boyd denied the putative class members off-duty meal periods and rest breaks and that it had failed to include certain reimbursements and an annual bonus payment in calculating the employees' hourly rate of overtime pay. The trial court denied certification as to all three subclasses, and the Court of Appeal affirmed as to the claims for meal and rest periods on the ground that the evidence submitted by Boyd showed the ability of each of its security guards to take breaks depended on individual issues. However, the Court reversed the denial of class certification as to the overtime subclass, reasoning that the trial court abused its discretion to the extent it decided common issues did not predominate. The Supreme Court granted review, but after the Supreme Court's opinion in Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012), the case was transferred back to the Court of Appeal, which in this opinion reconsidered its earlier opinion in light of Brinker and held that the trial court erred by denying class certification of all three subclasses – determining that common issues of fact predominate over individual issues. See also Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 216 Cal. App. 4th 864 (2013) (class action should have been certified because common issues predominate over individual issues, and common injury resulted from wage statement errors); Leyva v. Medline Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2013).