Cynthia Flores v. Supervalu, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Cynthia Flores appeals the district court’s denial of class certification for three subclasses of employees whom she claims suffered because of her employer’s alleged violations of California law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

1. The district court appropriately concluded that Flores failed to establish that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), as to the proposed meal break and rest break subclasses. Flores claimed that although her employer’s written meal and rest break policies were facially lawful, the demeanor of some supervisors implicitly compelled employees to forego or interrupt breaks to help customers. The district court correctly found that this claim required examination of “a number of human factors and individual idiosyncrasies” having “little to do with an overarching policy,” and thus failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3). See In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that class certification may be denied when “a fact-intensive inquiry into each potential plaintiffs employment…