Haro

Haro v. City of Rosemead

Good Law
174 Cal. App. 4th 1067·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 915·94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 874
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 9, 2009B210629California3,895 words

Opinion

Opinion

Flier, J.

Appellants Randy Haro and Robert B allin filed an action against respondent City of Rosemead, alleging in their complaint that this “is a collective action brought under 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b), seeking compensation for all hours worked.” Title 29 United States Code section 216 is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA; 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.). The trial court denied appellants’ motion to certify as a class under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 (section 382) individuals who worked for respondent as nonexempt employees. This appeal is from that order.

We find that appellants’ FLSA action cannot be maintained as a class action under section 382. For the reasons we state below, we conclude that the trial court’s order was not appealable. Appellants also appeal an order denying leave to amend the complaint, which is not an appealable order. We dismiss both appeals.

FLSA ACTIONS

Title 29 United States Code sections 206 and 207 respectively govern minimum wages and maximum hours. In pertinent part, title 29 United States Code section 216(b) provides that “[a]ny employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to…

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.