You need to prove your case: California Supreme Court confirms wage-and-hour defendants have right to argue individualised defence in class action trials

By Ben Gipson and Maria C Rodriguez

Class action trials have long been the bogeyman no one talks about in California. Parties had to address whether a class action was ‘manageable’ before it was certified, but because the vast majority of class actions never proceed to trial, no one really knew what the rules were to craft a trial plan for these types of representative actions.

On 30 May, the California Supreme Court in Duran v US Bank National Association confirmed that not only must a trial plan be addressed before a case can be certified as a class action, but the trial plan, and specifically the use of representative testimony and sampling of data, cannot be used to deprive wage-and-hour defendants of their right to question the appropriateness of this methodology when there are individualised questions presented.

This case has far-reaching ramifications. It has the potential to dramatically shape the way employment class actions proceed in California and how employers evaluate these cases going forward…

Click on the link below to read the rest of the DLA Piper briefing.

Briefings from DLA Piper

View more briefings from DLA Piper

Analysis from The Lawyer

View more analysis from The Lawyer


3 Noble Street

Turnover (£m): 1,539.00
No. of lawyers: 4,374(UK 200)
Jurisdiction: Global
No. of offices: Over 75
No. of qualified lawyers: 625 (International 50)