NT Lakis attorneys have filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a wage and hour case, urging reversal of a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that a plaintiff can demonstrate the factors required to grant class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by using inadmissible evidence.
In its cursory, two-paragraph opinion in Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc. v. Pena, the Ninth Circuit let stand a federal trial court decision granting certification of two classes based on a 9,000 page spreadsheet prepared by plaintiffs’ attorneys which they themselves conceded was not admissible evidence in a court trial.
Our brief argues that in holding that a plaintiff can submit inadmissible evidence in support of class certification, the Ninth Circuit’s questionable standard will open the floodgates of class litigation and significantly disadvantage employers who are forced to defend or settle these class action lawsuits.
We contend the issue is especially important to companies subject to large-scale wage and hour class action litigation, where attorney work-product, such as attorney-created spreadsheets analyzing employer timekeeping and payroll data, is regularly offered as alleged “proof” that a class action is appropriate.
A copy of our brief to the Supreme Court is available here.
Members of the Center for Workplace Compliance (CWC) can read more here.