Gunderson v. Alta Devices, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that Alta Devices, Inc. violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the California WARN Act by closing its facility at 545 Oakmead Parkway in Sunnyvale, California, on or about October 21, 2019, and terminating employees without providing the required 60 days’ advance written notice. They sought 60 days of wages and benefits. The plaintiffs estimated that the proposed class included between 240 and 300 former employees.

The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) to certify a class consisting of former Alta Devices employees who worked at or reported to the facility and were laid off, furloughed, or terminated without cause in connection with the facility’s closure. They also asked the court to appoint the named plaintiffs as class representatives, appoint Lankenau & Miller, LLP, The Gardner Firm, P.C., and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP as class counsel, and approve their proposed class-notice plan. Alta Devices did not oppose the motion or submit evidence rebutting the plaintiffs’ materials.

Class-Certification Analysis

The court applied Rule 23’s requirements. Under Rule 23(a), a proposed class must satisfy numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions must predominate over individual questions, and a class action must be superior to other methods of resolving the dispute.

The court found numerosity because the proposed class allegedly included 240 to 300 employees, making it impractical to join each person in one case. It found commonality because the class members shared questions about whether Alta Devices’ actions triggered the WARN Acts’ 60-day notice requirement, whether statutory exceptions applied, whether Alta Devices failed to provide notice, and whether the employees suffered an employment loss.

The court found typicality because the named plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same alleged facility closure and layoffs as the proposed class members’ claims. It also found adequacy because the plaintiffs and their counsel appeared to have no conflicts with the class, and the lawyers had experience handling similar WARN Act class actions.

The court further found that common questions predominated. In particular, the court concluded that the central notice-related issues were likely to be resolved through common proof, and that the class definition addressed the employment-loss issue. The court also found a class action superior because the class members could be identified from Alta Devices’ employment records, no other related WARN Act class claims had been filed against Alta Devices, and the forum was suitable for resolving the claims together.

Counsel and Notice

The court found Lankenau & Miller, LLP, The Gardner Firm, P.C., and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP adequate under Rule 23(g) and appointed them as co-class counsel. The court approved the proposed notice by first-class mail with prepaid postage. The notice was required to explain the nature of the action, the class definition, the claims and defenses, the right to appear through an attorney, the right to request exclusion, the exclusion procedure and deadline, and the binding effect of a class judgment.

Order

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification; granted the motion to appoint Scott Gunderson, Daniel Patterson, Ben Lenail, Brendan Kayes, James Bustamante, Octavi Semonin, and Annett Suess as class representatives; appointed the three law firms as co-class counsel; and granted the motion to approve the form and manner of class notice.

The order required Alta Devices to provide class counsel, within five business days after entry of the order, with an electronic spreadsheet listing the names and last known addresses of the former employees covered by the class definition. Class counsel was required to mail the notice within ten business days after receiving that spreadsheet. Class members seeking exclusion had to send the completed opt-out form so that it was received no later than 35 days after the notice was mailed. Within five business days after the opt-out deadline, class counsel had to file a sworn statement listing the people who timely opted out.