Procedural Posture
Plaintiff advertisers' consolidated second amended complaint (SAC) alleged that defendants were owners and operators of Internet search engines and websites. According to the SAC, defendants breached their advertising agreement with plaintiffs in a number of ways and overcharged for advertising services. Defendants filed motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement.
Overview
A business litigation attorney Orange County CA represents plaintiffs and defendants in civil lawsuits. They manage all phases of the litigation from the investigation, pleadings, pre-trial, trial, settlement, and appeal processes. Plaintiffs alleged: (1) breach of contract, (2) restitution, unjust enrichment, and money had and received, (3) misrepresentation and civil conspiracy, (4) and violations of California's unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Initially, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' class claims without prejudice to its being renewed upon a more developed evidentiary record. Next, it found that plaintiffs had standing. Regarding breach of contract, plaintiffs were entitled to conduct discovery. Next, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because the court did not interpret the scope of the Agreement, it denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for restitution, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The court found that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their claim for misrepresentation. Because a conspiracy required an agreement between two or more entities to perform a wrongful act, and because there was no basis for holding the purported third party coconspirators liable, plaintiffs' conspiracy claim against defendants failed.
Outcome
The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' conspiracy claim. In all other respects, defendants' motion to dismiss was denied. Defendants' motion for a more definite statement was denied.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff former employee filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in relation to California home mortgage consultants (HMC) employed by defendant mortgage company in multidistrict litigation arising from defendant's classification of HMCs as exempt employees under federal and state overtime laws.
Overview
The primary function of HMCs was to market and sell mortgages. Defendant argued that class certification was inappropriate due to the assertedly individualized and factual nature of the inquiries regarding the experience of each particular HMC. The court considered Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) commonality and typicality in conjunction with the more exacting predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3). Although defendant raised serious issues regarding individual variations among HMC job duties and experiences, the court found that common factual and legal issues related to defendant's classification of all HMCs as exempt under 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 207(i), 213(a) and Cal. Lab. Code §§ 515(a), 1171 nonetheless predominated. The court found it disingenuous to treat a class of employees as a homogenous group for the purposes of internal policies and compensation and then assert that the same group was too diverse for class treatment in overtime litigation. While the existence of alternative remedies was a factor weighing against class certification, the substantial predominance of common issues coupled with case management techniques tipped the balance in favor of class treatment.
Outcome
The court granted plaintiff's motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification. The court denied defendant's request to limit the class to a Fair Labor Standards Act "Opt-In" collective action.