Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA") respectfully opposes Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The sweeping class proposed by Plaintiffs — encompassing approximately 1,850 current and former non-exempt, hourly employees across seven California production facilities, 14 distinct show units, and a class period spanning from November 1, 2018 to the present — cannot be certified because P

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Parties Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA") is a Delaware corporation, qualified and doing business in the State of California, with its principal place of business at 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, California 90069. AMA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aurelius Global Media Group PLC ("AGMG"), a public limited company organized under the laws of England and

III. LEGAL STANDARD A. Class Certification Requirements Under California Law Class certification in California is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.764. The party seeking certification bears the burden of establishing each prerequisite for class treatment. (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 326.) "The certification question is 'essent

1. Ascertainability. The proposed class must be defined with sufficient precision that it is possible to identify class members and determine who is and who is not included in the class. (Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 908, 914.)

2. Community of Interest. The community of interest requirement encompasses three distinct factors: a. Predominance of Common Questions. Common questions of law or fact must predominate over questions affecting individual class members. This is the most important factor and is often dispositive. (Sav-On, 34 Cal.4th at 326.) The predominance requirement is not satisfied merely by showing that some common questions exi

3. Superiority. A class action must be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The court must consider whether class treatment will yield economies of time, effort, and expense and whether alternative mechanisms — such as individual actions, PAGA representative actions, or administrative remedies — would be more appropriate. (Sav-On, 34 Cal.4th at 332.) The tria

IV. ARGUMENT A. Common Questions Do Not Predominate Over Individual Questions Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that common questions of law or fact predominate over individual questions. They have not carried that burden. On the contrary, the record demonstrates that the resolution of Plaintiffs' claims — whether analyzed under the meal period, rest period, off-the-clock, or derivative theories — requires

1. Meal Period Claims — The Auto-Deduction Does Not Establish Class-Wide Liability Plaintiffs' meal period claims rest on a fundamental conceptual error: the conflation of a timekeeping method with a substantive policy of denying breaks. The TimeTrack Pro auto-deduction feature is a recording mechanism. It records the time assumed to be taken for a compliant meal period. It does not deny anyone a meal period. It does

2. Rest Period Claims — No Common Proof Whatsoever Plaintiffs' rest period claims fail the predominance requirement even more decisively than their meal period claims. Rest periods, unlike meal periods, are not recorded in the TimeTrack Pro system. This is standard industry practice, because rest periods under California law are paid time during which employees remain on the clock. There is no auto-deduction for rest

3. Off-the-Clock/Overtime Claims — Inherently Individualized Plaintiffs' off-the-clock claims allege that class members performed uncompensated pre-shift setup (30–45 minutes) and post-shift wrap (15–30 minutes) on a regular basis. By definition, this alleged work was not recorded in any timekeeping system — the whole premise of the claim is that the work occurred outside of recorded clock time. There is therefore no

4. Wage Statement (Cal. Lab. Code § 226) and UCL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) Claims — Entirely Derivative Plaintiffs' wage statement claim under Labor Code section 226 alleges that AMA's wage statements were inaccurate because they failed to reflect off-the-clock work time and unpaid meal period premiums. Plaintiffs' Unfair Competition Law claim under Business & Professions Code section 17200 incorporates the un

5. Waiting Time Penalties (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201–203) — Individual Determination Required Plaintiffs' claim for waiting time penalties under Labor Code sections 201 through 203 is premised on the allegation that AMA willfully failed to pay all wages owed to employees upon their separation from employment. Waiting time penalties are assessed at the employee's daily rate of pay for each day that wages remain unpaid, up

6. Minimum Wage (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1197, 1197.1) — Derivative of Overtime Claim Plaintiffs' minimum wage claim alleges that when unrecorded off-the-clock work time is factored into the calculation of hours worked, the effective hourly rate for certain shifts fell below the applicable minimum wage. This claim is entirely derivative of the off-the-clock claim. It cannot be resolved without first determining, for each c