Target Corporation recently defeated class certification in a case pending in United States District Court for the Central District of California in Montgomery, et al. v. Target Corp., et al. The decision, authored by the Honorable Jesus G. Bernal, highlights the importance of the evidence presented in a motion for class certification, particularly in federal court.
In this case, the plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that meal break premiums were not paid at the regular rate of pay (RROP), that managers adjusted meal break time punches to cover up non-compliant breaks, that Target required on-premises rest breaks for a period of time, that employees were required to use their personal cell phones to look up items for customers without reimbursement, that employees were forced to clock out for meal breaks and continue working during the busy holiday periods, and that employees were forced to wait long periods to clock in for work without pay. In support of the motion for class certification, the plaintiffs submitted declarations from the two named plaintiffs, 21 former Target employees, plaintiffs’ expert, and plaintiffs’ counsel. Target’s opposition included the declarations of 549 current Target employees, Target’s expert, and Target’s counsel.
The Court began its analysis by noting that the plaintiffs were required to affirmatively demonstrate that all requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23 had been met, and the court...
Kenneth Scott Miller, 48, is charged with a felony count of making a false report to law enforcement. He was released from the Escambia County Jail on a $500 bond. According to an Escambia County ...