New class certification decision: Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC

In Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jun. 7, 2011, pub. ord. Jul. 7, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Two) affirmed an order denying class certification of overtime claims arising out of alleged misclassification.

The opinion's discussion of numerosity and adequacy (slip op. at 21-24) is interesting and underscores the importance of attention to every detail in preparing one's papers in support of class certification. The opinion provides some guidance on what it is safest to make sure is always included in class representative declarations on adequacy. 

Comments

[rb]

Generally, if a named plaintiff is a member of the class he seeks to represent and has claims typical to the class, he will be considered an adequate representative. Richmond v. Dart Industries (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 474.

Depublication request?

[Kimberly A. Kralowec]

Possibly so. It may be that both the trial and appellate courts read more into the "adequacy" element than the Supreme Court's precedents warrant. On the other hand, as a practical matter, it should not be particularly difficult to meet the standard stated in this decision if it stays on the books. All you have to do is make your class representatives' declarations more detailed.