Appellants sought review of judgment by the United States Bankruptcy Court

 

Procedural Posture

Appellants sought review of judgment by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California denying appellants' motion to remand to state court their class action lawsuit against a non-debtor. Their suit alleged fraud in violation of California statutes and common law.

Overview

A lawyer to sue for breach of contract San Diego manages large and small legal issues in lawsuits that any business may need to negotiate as a regular course of business. Appellants alleged they were defrauded as a result of their investments in a sale-leaseback program, claiming violations of state law and common law. One non-debtor party defendant removed the state action to bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1452 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027. The purported basis for removal was that the state action involved claims that were core proceedings under 28 U.S.C.S. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (H), and (O). Appellants sought review of denial of motion to remand the proceedings to state court. The court determined that the bankruptcy court erred when it determined that the state law claims were within the core jurisdiction of the court. There was no showing that the claims were so intertwined with the bankruptcy issues as to draw them within the catch-all provisions of 28 U.S.C.S. § 157(b)(2)(A) or (O). The causes of action fit within case law authority indicating they were in fact not core, as the actions did not include the bankruptcy debtor.

Outcome

The court reversed and remanded, holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellants' state law claims against the non-debtor defendants.

 

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff truck driver filed an action individually and on behalf of other truck drivers who worked for defendant employer, alleging that the employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 207(a), and the California Unfair Competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7200 et seq. The driver filed a motion to certify two classes, an "opt-in" class and an "opt-out" class, and for facilitation of notice to class members.

Overview

The driver alleged that the employer had a policy of requiring truck drivers to work more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay. The employer opposed class certification, arguing that the driver and class members were exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA under the Motor Carrier Safety Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 213(b)(1). The district court held that the driver failed to carry his burden that other drivers were similarly situated. The driver did not present any evidence that the other drivers were improperly paid for their work or that the employer had a company wide policy to deny overtime compensation to those who were entitled to such compensation. The employer presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that an individualized inquiry would have to be made on the Motor Carrier exemption. There was evidence of potential class members actually driving across state lines, and drivers had a reasonable expectation of making interstate hauls. The driver could not satisfy commonality and typicality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). There was no evidence that there was a policy to deny overtime to those who were entitled to it, and violations did not occur as to some class members.

Outcome

The district court denied the driver's motion for class certification and his motion for facilitation of notice to class members.