Plaintiff former employee sued defendant former employer alleging failure to pay overtime as required by Cal. Lab. Code § 510, improperly reduced commissions violated Cal. Lab. Code § 202, California Unfair Competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., and the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698. The employer moved for reconsideration and moved for summary judgment.
The employer litigation attorney provided industrial washing services, and industrial waste and oil recycling services, to various private companies and government entities. The court denied summary judgment on the issue of whether California’s overtime requirements applied. The employer moved for reconsideration and also moved for summary judgment in order to assert a new legal ground that the state overtime requirements were not applicable because the employee was exempt under federal Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. The court found that given the lack of clarity that existed with regard to the issue of parts washing v. industrial waste management a material issue of fact existed as to whether the employee was regularly engaged in the transportation of hazardous waste, such that the state motor carrier exemption applied. Under the proper legal standard, the employee would be entitled to overtime for days in which he did not transport hazardous materials. The court could not determine, at this juncture, whether the employee was a driver engaged in the transport of interstate commerce, such that the DOT regulations or the state motor carrier exemption applied.
The employer’s motions for reconsideration and for summary judgment were denied.
In the Superior Court of Orange County (California), real party in interest (party) obtained certification of a nationwide class in her action against petitioner bank. Party alleged that petitioner grossly overcharged home loan borrowers whose hazard insurance had lapsed for collateral protection insurance. Petitioner sought writ of mandate directing the superior court to reverse its order certifying the nationwide class.
Real party in interest obtained class certification in her action against petitioner bank. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate directing the trial court to reverse its order certifying the nationwide class. Petitioner contended that the trial court failed to engage in conflict of law analysis which took into consideration and enforced the standard choice of law provisions contained in underlying loan documents. Further, petitioner argued that because each potential class member’s deed of trust contained an enforceable choice of law clause designating the law of the jurisdiction where the property was located, a nationwide class was inappropriate as a trial could potentially involve application of the law of other states. The instant court (court) held that there was no error. The deeds of trust contained choice of law clauses, not choice of forum clauses. There was no reason that the choice of law clauses would have any impact on the trial court’s analysis if there was no conflict between California law and the law of other jurisdictions. Petitioner failed to cite any particular state’s law, or explain how that particular law would substantively conflict with California law.
The instant court denied writ of mandate to petitioner, on the grounds that there was no error in the trial court’s failure to engage in a conflict of law analysis in making a nationwide class action certification.