Faulkinbury

Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc.

Bad Law
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 632·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 370·216 Cal. App. 4th 220·2013 WL 1927019
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 10, 2013G041702California7,158 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

Introduction

Plaintiffs Josie Faulkinbury and William Levene (together, Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, appealed from the order denying their motion for class certification. They sought to represent and certify a class of about 4,000 current and former employees of defendant Boyd & Associates, Inc. (Boyd), which provides security guard services throughout Southern California. Plaintiffs and the putative class members work or worked for Boyd as security guards. They asserted Boyd denied off-duty meal breaks and off-duty rest breaks, and failed to include certain reimbursements and an annual bonus payment in calculating the hourly rate of overtime pay. Plaintiffs proposed three subclasses, which we will refer to as the Meal Break Class, the Rest Break Class, and the Overtime Class.

We issued an opinion affirming the order denying certification of the Meal Break Class and the Rest Break Class, and reversing the order denying certification of the Overtime Class. (Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc. (Cal.App.) (Faulkinbury I).) We issued our opinion before the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.