On January 28, 2010, a request was filed with the Second District (Division One), to publish its decision in Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc., Case No. B209486. In Jaimez, the CAP reversed the trial court’s order denying certification of a multitude of wage and hour claims.
The fundamental component of the Court’s decision turned on the trial court’s reliance upon testimony submitted in 25 employee declarations as a basis for finding the class element of “predominance” to be lacking. See Slip Opinion, at 13-16. As reasoned by the Court, the trial court erred by focusing on the “individual effects of policies and practices” contained in such declaration testimony [Id., at 15], rather than evaluating whether “[p]laintiff’s 'theory of recovery' involves uniform policies … amenable to class treatment.” See id., at 14. As the Court explained, “[t]he fact that individualized proof of damages may ultimately be necessary does not mean, … that Jaimez’s theory of recovery is not amenable to class treatment.” See id., at 22-23. According to the Court, “had the trial court focused on the correct criteria, it would have necessarily found the First Choice declarations, while identifying individual effects of policies and practices that may well call for individual damages determinations, nevertheless confirm the predominance of common legal and factual issues that make this case more amenable to class treatment.” See Id., at 15.
The Jaimez opinion extends the court’s analysis in Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd., 169 Cal.App.4th 1524 (2008) to various types of claims, including claims for misclassification, unpaid overtime compensation, missed meal and rest periods, and the failure to provide compliant pay stubs.