Plaintiff Joanne Allison, a former registered nurse (RN), brought the underlying class action against her former employer, Dignity Health, alleging claims for unpaid work, meal period and rest break violations, as well as derivative claims.

Allison filed a motion for class certification on behalf of RNs who worked at three Dignity’s hospitals – St. John’s Regional Medical Center in Oxnard, CA, St. John’s Pleasant Valley Hospital in Camarillo, CA and Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento – since June 1, 2014. She also sought certification of subclasses for certain claims, including meal period violations and rest break violations.

Allison asserted that a “facial review of RN timecards” showed most RNs experienced meal periods that failed to comply with law. Her expert identified all work shifts eligible for one or more meal periods and then “identified each instance where the time records reflected a Sample Class Member’s meal period was either missed, late, or short/interrupted.” After “accounting for premiums paid” based on Dignity’s payroll data, the expert opined that over 70 percent of relevant shifts had a non-compliant meal period with an unpaid premium.

Allison averred that this evidence established a rebuttable presumption of class-wide liability under the Supreme Court case of Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58 (Donohue). Moreover, because Dignity admitted it did not record the reason for any given non-compliant meal period – instead it required class members to self-report and to apply for a premium payment – Allison contended the lawfulness of placing the burden on employees to keep meal break records was a common question.

Allison based her noncompliant rest break claim (and, to some extent, her meal period claim) on purported interruptions from work-issued communication devices – i.e., Vocera devices and Spectralink devices. She asserted “Dignity’s policy required RNs to wear these devices at all times . . . even during breaks,” giving rise to a common question whether this resulted in unlawful off-the-clock interruptions. As common proof to establish Dignity’s class-wide liability under this theory, Allison’s expert opined that a “comparison of Vocera log ins with RN timecards show[ed] nearly 70% of employees in the Vocera sample were using the device while clocked-out in [Dignity’s] timekeeping program.”

In opposing certification, Dignity argued individual inquiries predominated the meal period claim despite Allison’s use of Dignity’s time- clock records as class-wide proof.

The trial court granted in part and denied in part Allison’s motion for class certification during a class period of June 1, 2014 to January 13, 2022. The court explained that Dignity’s showing that RNs “sometimes were able to take uninterrupted breaks” was insufficient to defeat the predominance of common issues.

Nineteen months after the initial certification order, Dignity moved to decertify the class on grounds that post-certification discovery refuted the trial court’s prior predominance findings. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs argued Dignity failed to satisfy its threshold burden to show “new law or new evidence showing changed circumstances” since the certification order. Plaintiffs also countered that the post-certification evidence further demonstrated the propriety of class treatment.

Following a hearing, the trial court granted the decertification motion. As a threshold matter, the trial court ruled the “large number of new declarations” as well as “plaintiffs’ efforts at a statistical analysis” constituted new evidence. And, in light of such new evidence, it determined “there [was] no good reason to ignore other evidence,” and therefore it considered the entire record. The court determined that “ ‘commonality’ ” was not the central issue; rather, “[t]he problem is the ‘predominance’ issue, as individual issues swamp the common issues.” The trial court also expressed concern that plaintiffs’ trial plan betrayed fatal flaws to continued class status.

The Court of Appeal affirmed in the published case of Allison v. Dignity Health CA1/4 – A169225 (June 2025)

Class actions are permitted “when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, . . . and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 382.) Our Supreme Court has articulated that to proceed as a class action there must be “the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.” (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004,1021.) “ ‘In turn, the “community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.” ’ ” (Ibid.)

A class “can be decertified at any time, even during trial, should it later appear individual issues dominate the case,” (Macmanus v. A. E. Realty Partners (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1106, 1117), decertification is appropriate “ ‘only where it is clear there exist changed circumstances making continued class action treatment improper.’ ” (Green v. Obledo (1981) 29 Cal.3d 126, 148.)

Our Supreme Court’s decisions “clearly contemplate the possibility of successive motions concerning certification” based on evidence uncovered in post-certification discovery. (Occidental Land, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 18 Cal.3d 355, 360 (Occidental).)

“Here, the trial court expressly found there was new evidence, referencing ‘a large number of new declarations,’ plus ‘plaintiffs’ efforts at a statistical analysis.’ Indeed, following certification, Dignity deposed 44 class members from the three hospitals at issue.“