Duran v. U.S. Bank, Supreme Court of California

The Duran v. U.S. Bank decision was a win for the defendants (if you ask them) and not a loss for the plaintiffs(if you ask them).

For example according to Paul Hastings defense attorney, Jeffrey Wohl,

“In a highly anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court has held that a trial court erred in trying a wage-and-hour class action by means of a sampling technique that neither provided a valid basis to determine liability nor permitted the defendant its due process right to raise affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims. Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. S200923 (May 29, 2014).

The court’s decision in Duran also makes clear that before a trial court certifies a class, it should require the plaintiff to present a trial plan that will permit the case to be tried manageably on a class basis. Duran also considerably strengthens the defense argument that exempt-status misclassification cases are inherently fact-intensive and usually not suited to class certification.”

Conversely, the plaintiff’s bar, said:

However, it [Duran]  did not categorically foreclose the use of common proof (e.g., statistical sampling or representative testimony) in wage and hour class actions, and reaffirmed the ability of plaintiffs to prove misclassification on a class-wide basis. The court also held that there is no due process right to litigate an affirmative defense as to each individual class member.

 

DURAN-decision

J.R. Randall

J.R. Randall is an economist who resides in the Bay Area. He focuses his interest on range of economic topics. He has interest in deep sea fishing and art.