California Court of Appeal Follows Dukes And Rejects "Trial By Formula" In Class Action Trials

On February 6, 2012 the California Court of Appeal, First District, issued its opinion in Duran, et al. v. U.S. Bank.  Readers may recall our posting following the oral argument in this matter.  In a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeal considered whether class action plaintiffs may use statistical sampling and representative evidence to establish liability on a class-wide basis.  In an extremely thorough and detailed opinion, the court answered that question “no” in this case, and soundly rejected the trial plan implemented by the trial court.  In holding that it was unconstitutional because it deprived U.S. Bank of its due process rights, the court stated that “a trial in which one side is almost completely prevented from making its case does not comport with standards of due process."  The court also decertified the class based on the trial court’s erroneous assumption that a finding of liability could be determined by extrapolating findings based on the trial sample of approximately 20 plaintiffs to the entire class of 260.

Plaintiffs filed the case in Alameda County Superior Court , alleging that U.S. Bank’s  Business Banking Officers (“BBOs”) were misclassified as exempt employees.  After class certification, Judge Robert Freedman granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication on the Bank’s defenses of administrative exemption and commission sales exemption.  The case then went to a bench trial on the Bank’s remaining defense under the outside sales exemption.

To read this blog post click here