May 9, 2008   WAL-MART: 9th Circuit Favors Assistant Managers in Overtime Suit In an unpublished opinion, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals  says that the trial court -- U.S. District Court for the Central  District of California -- erred when it refused to allow  assistant managers at Wal-Mart to present their case as a class  action suit, Digg Newsvine reports. "The district court must focus on the intent of the plaintiffs  in bringing suit.  We therefore hold that the district court  abused its discretion in denying class certification," 9th  Circuit ruling said. "On remand the district court shall reconsider class  certification," the 9th Circuit says.  The Class Action Reported on Oct. 16, 2007, that the U.S.  District Court for the Central District of California stayed the purported class action, captioned "Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores,  Inc.," pending a decision on plaintiff's appeal in the matter. Generally, the suit -- involving more than 2,750 assistant  managers -- is alleging violations of California's meal break  and overtime laws.  It seeks certification of a class of  salaried managers who challenge their exempt status under state  and federal laws.   The CAR recounted that in May 2006, the federal court denied a  motion for class certification.  In refusing to certify the  class action, Judge Dale S. Fischer found that the claims of the  assistant managers were too individualized and that injunctive relief would fail to address the concerns of the majority of  potential class members since they are no longer with the  company. The plaintiffs then appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of  Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On Aug. 11, 2006, the 9th  Circuit granted the plaintiffs permission to appeal the order  denying class certification.  In their appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the District Court's decision denying class  certification was manifestly erroneous. The District Court found that the stay of the suit was  appropriate because the class certification decision involves an  unsettled, fundamental issue of law. The suit is "Daniel Sepulveda, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,  et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01003-DSF-E," on appeal from the U.S.  District Court for the Central District of California under  Judge Dale Fischer. Representing the plaintiffs are:           Robert J. Drexler, Jr., Esq. (rdrexler@quislaw.com)           Quisenberry Law Firm           2049 Century Park East, Suite 2200           Los Angeles, CA 90067-2909           Phone: 310-785-7966                - and -           Steven G. Pearl, Esq. (sgpearl@sgpearl.com)           Pearl Law Offices           16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 625           Encino, CA 91436-2412           Phone: 818-995-8300 Representing the defendants is:                      Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq.           Jones Day           77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 35           Chicago, IL 60601-1692           Phone: 312-782-3939
CLASS ACTION REPORTER  Today's Top Stories have been selected from the Class Action Reporter.  To receive the Full CAR please CLICK HERE.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Options Please refer to the right column of the mail for options to subscribing or unsubscribing to the CAR Top Stories. You are subscribed as [EMAIL] 502 West Patrick Street, Frederick, MD 21701, USA For subscribe/unsubscribe instructions, please refer to the top right navigation column of this E-mail. For more information on the Class Action Reporter, please visit http://www.litigationdatadepot.com/classActionReporter.php To get a paid subscription and receive the full CAR, please visit https://ecommerce.beard.com/beardgroup/paid_subscription.html