Sav-On Drug v. LA Super. Ct. 4/4/02 CA2/4

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2002 » Sav-On Drug v. LA Super. Ct. 4/4/02 CA2/4

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B152628

Case Date: 04/19/2002

Preview:Filed 4/4/02; pub. order 4/19/02 (see end of opn.)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

SAV-ON DRUG STORES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ROBERT ROCHER et al., Real Parties in Interest.

B152628 (Super. Ct. No. BC227551)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Irving S. Feffer, Judge. Petition granted. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, W. Randolph Teslik, Joel M. Cohn, William A. Norris, Rex Heinke, L. Rachel Helyar, and Sandra M. Lee for Petitioner. Law Offices of Steven Drapkin and Steven Drapkin for Employers Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent.

RighettiWynne, Matthew Righetti, and Edward J. Wynne; Daniels, Fine, Israel & Schonbuch, Scott A. Brooks, and Craig S. Momita for Real Parties in Interest. Saperstein, Goldstein, Demchak & Baller, David Borgen, and Laura L. Ho for Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco--the Employment Law Center, La Raza Centro Legal, Inc., and the Women's Employment Rights Clinic--Golden Gate University School of Law as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.

_______________

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Robert Rocher and Connie Dahlin (plaintiffs) on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated brought this class action against defendant Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. (defendant). Plaintiffs allege that defendant wrongfully failed to pay overtime wages to class members, consisting of current and former employees classified by defendant as operating managers (OM's) and assistant managers (AM's) of defendant's 300 retail stores and claimed by defendant to be managerial employees exempt from overtime wage laws. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendant petitioned this court for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to deny class certification. We issued an order to show cause. We shall issue the writ directing the trial court to vacate its order granting class certification. We hold the trial court abused its discretion. The disputed issue in this case, whether the class members were exempt from overtime wage
2

laws, involves individual fact questions that predominate over undisputed common issues, rendering class action treatment inappropriate. In a later portion of this opinion we dispose of routine procedural issues regarding this writ proceeding.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

Exemption from Overtime Wage Requirements

The underlying merits involve whether the AM's and OM's should have been paid overtime wages. Defendant treated them as salaried managers exempt from the overtime wage laws. The period covered by the present complaint is April 1996 to April 2000. A wage order of the Industrial Welfare Commission relating to the mercantile industry, codified in title 8, California Code of Regulations section 11070, provided that the overtime requirements do not apply to "persons employed in administrative, executive, or professional capacities," defined as "engaged in work which is primarily intellectual, managerial, or creative, and which requires exercise of discretion and independent judgment." (

Download Sav-On Drug v. LA Super. Ct. 4/4/02 CA2/4.pdf