Creese v. Washington Mutual Bank
Appellants Kimblyn Creese and Phyllis Parker (collectively Creese) appeal from an order denying class certification to a proposed class of underwriters in an action against respondent Washington Mutual Bank (Bank) for, inter alia, failing to pay them overtime, give them meal and rest breaks, and give them itemized wage statements. Creese alleged, in part, that Bank misclassified the underwriters as administrative employees exempt from the relevant labor laws when in fact they are nonexempt because they were employed in a production capacity, and they did not exercise discretion or independent judgment. The trial court determined that common questions did not predominate as to whether the underwriters exercised discretion and independent judgment, and that class certification would not be advantageous to the judicial process and the litigants. Creese contends that the trial court utilized improper legal criteria and erroneous legal assumptions, and that it misapplied the test articulated in Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 805 (Bell I). As a result, Creese contends that the ruling was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the trial court prematurely ruled on the merits instead of determining whether she established the requisites for class certification. Court find no error and affirm.
Comments on Creese v. Washington Mutual Bank