Prince

Prince v. CLS Transportation, Inc.

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 4th 1320·13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 802·2004 Daily Journal DAR 6268·9 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1480
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 26, 2004No. B164066California3,830 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Vogel, J.

*1322 Opinion

Ronald Prince, Thomasina Lawrence, and Michael L. Gleaton filed a class action complaint against CLS Transportation, Inc., Charles Horky, and Marcy Horky to recover allegedly unpaid wages. 1 CLS demurred on the ground that this is “not an appropriate class action,” contending there is no well-defined community of interest, and that a class action is not superior to other methods of adjudicating these particular claims. Over Prince’s opposition, the trial court sustained the demurrer “without leave to amend the class action allegations,” noting that the case would proceed with the named plaintiffs. Prince appeals. 2 We conclude that, in this context, class suitability should not have been determined at the pleading stage, and that the order thus must be reversed.

FACTS

The Complaint

This is a wage and hour class action brought by Prince for himself and on behalf of more than 500 drivers who are or were employed by CLS. The complaint alleges that “[t]his action involves common questions of law and fact . . . because [it] focuses on [CLS’s] systematic course of illegal payroll practices and policies throughout the State of California, which was applied to all…

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.