Earley

Earley v. Superior Court

Good Law
79 Cal. App. 4th 1420·95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 57
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 26, 2000B134741California6,598 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

This case arises out of a claim made by petitioners on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated to recover unpaid overtime compensation. Petitioners, Carol Earley, Donna Alvarez and Martin Garcia (hereafter petitioners), seek review of the trial court’s order, made as part of a class certification process, which required a particular notice to be mailed to absent class members giving them the option of “opting out” of petitioners’ class action to recover unpaid overtime compensation from defendant and real party in interest herein, Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., successor in interest to Home Savings of America, F.S.B. (hereafter defendant). Petitioners ask us to conclude that such notice was improper and to direct the trial court to vacate the order adopting it and directing its distribution.

Petitioners question the propriety of the inclusion in the proposed notice to class members of a warning that absent class members might be held liable for the attorney’s fees and costs of defendant should the suit be unsuccessful. To resolve the matter, we have to determine (1) if relevant provisions of the Labor Code allow for a successful defendant’s recovery of…

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.