|
|
IN BRIEF:
Case Name:
Burdusis v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.
Court:
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District
Client:
Bailey, Pinney, Georggin & Krutcik
Main Issue:
Should the Superior Court's order denying the motion for class certification be reversed because the Superior Court applied improper
criteria when assessing whether the requisites of a class action were met? |
About the Winner's Circle:
The success of our clients deserves the spotlight. The Winners' Circle is that spotlight. Read the case profiles to learn what other lawyers are doing and how they utilize Lawfinders to win in the trial courts and on appeal.
Read more Winners » |
About Bailey, Pinney, Georggin & Krutcik
Bailey, Pinney, Georggin & Krutcik is a respected firm with significant
experience in wage and hour law litigation. |
February 2005
Bailey, Pinney, Georggin & Krutcik Works With Lawfinders to Reverse Order Denying Class Certification
Case Details:
Burdusis was employed by Rent-A-Center in various managerial positions that were not exempt from the overtime requirements established by the California Labor Code. Burdusis filed suit in California Superior Court alleging that Rent-A-Center routinely required non-exempt employees to work through lunch without pay, failed to pay overtime as required by law, and failed to pay wages to terminated employees in a timely manner. Burdusis moved for certification of a class consisting all current and former non-exempt Rent-A-Center employees in California who had been deprived of overtime, breaks, or timely termination paychecks. Burdusis submitted hundreds of employee declarations in support of his motion. Rent-A-Center responded by describing its employment policies and asserting that because the issue of whether employees were or were not paid or given breaks would have to be decided on an individual basis, common questions of fact and law did not predominate for purposes of class certification. The Superior Court agreed and denied the motion.
On appeal, Bailey, Pinney, Georggin & Krutcik turned to Lawfinders for assistance in reversing the Superior Court’s order. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reversed the decision. The Court accepted Burdudsis’ contention that in denying certification, the Superior Court applied improper criteria and incorrect relied on out-of-state authority in concluding that common issues did not predominate. The Court also agreed with Lawfinders and Bailey, Pinney, Georggin & Krutcik that a recent decision by the California Supreme Court, along with another Court of Appeal decision that also involved wage and hour claims, were controlling. The Court of Appeal remanded the case and ordered the Superior Court to reconsider its certification decision in light of these newer opinions.
|
