Because of the importance to international practice generally of
class or collective actions, on which we have posted with some
frequency from time to time, we report on the decision in
Provine, et al. v. Office Depot, Inc., No. C 11-00903 SI
(N.D. Cal. 2012).
Office Depot offered a program to its employees known as the
Bravo Award Program. The Program allegedly rewards employees
for superior work performance. The named plaintiff received
$50 in awards twice and complained that the Company should have
factored in the amounts received in its calculation of
"regular rate of pay" for purposes of computing
overtime. Office Depot disagreed. Class certification
was sought on claims relating alleged failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and related
state law claims.
The decision first denied summary judgment. It then
granted class certification. Summarizing its decision, the
Court stated:
Here, all of these factors lead the Court to conclude that a
class action is superior to any other method of adjudication in
this case. All of the prospective class claims revolve around a
question of law common to all prospective class members –
whether defendant should have included Bravo Awards in class
member's regular rate of pay when computing overtime pay. The
Court is not aware of any prospective class member's individual
interest in controlling prosecution of separate actions, or of
anylitigation concerning the issues at hand other than this case.
Finally, managing this case as a class action will be far easier
than addressing all of the prospective class member's claims
individually. Each prospective class member would allege the same
set of common facts to answer the same question of law. Class
adjudication of this question of law is markedly more efficient
than addressing it individually for each class member. See Lerwill
v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507, 512 (9th Cir.
1978).
Does this case stand in contrast to other recent decisions that
we have posted on in that the question presented is essenially a
question of law, easily definable and suseptible to adjudication on
a class-wide basis? Does the answer to that question change
once it is considered that the Court denied summary because of
disputed issues of fact?
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
Publisher John Wiley & Sons and the American Institute of Physicists has claimed that lawyers and their Chicago-and Minneapolis-based law firms had wrongfully copied journal articles.
Startups and emerging growth companies should focus on building a patent monopoly around the most commercially important choke points of their inventions while making efficient use of their patent dollars and the precious time of their key innovators and technical experts.
Your company has just developed a new invention that it intends to unveil at your annual industry trade show. In advance of the show, your marketing department sends out a press release describing your new invention in detail and launches photos of your invention on your website.
In "Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.", the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and held that Bayer’s patent covering its Yaz® birth control pill product is invalid as obvious.
On April 18, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York again held that YouTube is subject to the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as an internet service provider despite alleged general knowledge of extensive copyright infringement.
Twitter
Facebook
Digg 
