Deleon v. Airtouch Cellular
Saul Deleon, for himself and as class representative, appeals from the trial court’s denial of class certification of wage-related claims against his former employer, Airtouch Cellular, doing business as Verizon Wireless (Verizon Wireless).[1] The trial court denied certification before the California Supreme Court decided Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Brinker). Deleon contends that in light of Brinker, the trial court’s order denying class certification was based on erroneous legal assumptions regarding the timing of meal periods and rest breaks, and the order also was based upon improper criteria.
We conclude the trial court’s denial of the meal period subclasses, including those nonexempt California employees claiming they were provided a late meal period or denied a second meal period, is not based upon erroneous legal assumptions but is consistent with Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th 1004 and supported by substantial evidence. On the question of rest break subclass certification, we conclude that appellant waived any claim that the trial court’s decision is based on an erroneous legal assumption regarding the timing of rest breaks, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding common issues do not predominate. With respect to the contested subclass seeking unreimbursed business expenses incurred while participating in the company’s concession phone program, the trial court’s decision to deny class certification is not based upon improper criteria. Accordingly, we affirm.
Comments on Deleon v. Airtouch Cellular