Faulkinbury

Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc.

Good Law
112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 72·185 Cal. App. 4th 1363·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 964
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 2010G041702California10,261 words

Opinion

Opinion

Plaintiffs Josie Faulkinbury and William Levene (together, Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, appeal from the trial court's 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 assert Boyd denied the putative class members off-duty meal breaks and off-duty rest breaks, and failed to include certain reimbursements and an annual bonus payment in calculating the employees' 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 affirm the order denying the motion for class certification as to the Meal Break Class and the Rest Break Class because, we conclude, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding common issues of law and fact did not predominate over individual issues. We reverse the order denying the motion for…

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.