Facts

Plaintiff Brandon Beal was employed by Defendants as a photographer since September 2005. On Nov. 11, 2010, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated employees, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging nine separate claims under California law relating to Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiff alleged claims for failure to indemnify, failure to pay drive time wages, failure to pay full overtime compensation, missed meal and rest breaks, failure to furnish an accurate itemized wage statement, failure to compensate all hours worked, failure to pay compensation upon discharge, violations of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., and remedies under California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that Defendants did not fully reimburse plaintiff and the class members for all necessary business expenditures, including the use of their personal vehicles and cellular telephones; did not pay Plaintiff and class members for all hours worked (including drive time and overtime); did not provide off-duty meal and rest periods or pay penalties for all missed meal periods; issued inaccurate wage statements; and did not pay all wages due upon plaintiff and class members' terminations at the end of each photography season.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied all claims of alleged violations or other failure to comply with State law. Defendants argued that Plaintiff has not included any specific factual allegation of any employee who failed to receive sufficient reimbursement for mileage or cell phone use.

Result

Defense. Judge Staton-Tucker denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification, saying that the proposed sub-class failed to meet a numerosity requirement and concluding that the lead plaintiff did not have standing to represent current employees.

Other Information

Plaintiff will file a Motion for Reconsideration on the grounds that the court failed to consider material facts pertaining to the claims at issue, those sought to be certified, and the number of members of the sub-class.