analysis-plaintiffs-certification-motion.docx

1017-00004 · Entities. Aurelius Global Media Group · Class Certification

analysis-plaintiffs-certification-motion.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

10 / 150 ← → ✕

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 555-4200 Facsimile: (310) 555-4201

CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

MEMORANDUM

TO: Renata Vasquez, Partner

FROM: Devon Archer, Senior Associate, and Nadia Petrov, Associate

DATE: April 20, 2023

RE: Analysis of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion — Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV38214 (Consolidated)

C&H Matter No.: 1017-00004

Right-click to update Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

On April 14, 2023, Plaintiffs Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "Named Plaintiffs") filed their Motion for Class Certification before the Honorable Raymond Escobedo, Department 34, of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The Motion is the central procedural milestone in this wage-and-hour class action against our client, Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA"), and warrants careful analysis and a robust opposition strategy.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class defined as: "All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. who worked in the State of California at any time from November 1, 2018 through the date of preliminary approval of the class settlement." Based on records produced in discovery, the estimated class encompasses approximately 1,850 individuals employed across AMA's seven California production facilities during the proposed class period.

The Motion seeks certification on all seven causes of action set forth in the operative Second Amended Complaint: (1) meal period violations under California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; (2) rest period violations under California Labor Code Section 226.7; (3) overtime and off-the-clock work under California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194; (4) minimum wage violations under California Labor Code Sections 1197 and 1197.1; (5) wage statement violations under California Labor Code Section 226; (6) waiting time penalties under California Labor Code Sections 201 through 203; and (7) unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (the "UCL" claim).

Lead class counsel is the firm of Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP, represented principally by Marco Castellano, Diane Salas, and Trevor Kim. PAGA co-counsel is the Veltrano Employment Law Group PC, represented by Sandra Higuera.

This memorandum provides a comprehensive analysis of the Motion, identifies the key arguments advanced by Plaintiffs, assesses the relative strengths and weaknesses of those arguments, and recommends a detailed opposition strategy. As discussed more fully below, we conclude that the most probable outcome is partial certification — the Court is likely to certify a class on the first meal period auto-deduction claim while denying certification on the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, and derivative claims, which rest on anecdotal evidence and unsupported assumptions. Our opposition strategy should be calibrated to achieve the narrowest possible scope of certification and to position AMA favorably for either summary judgment or settlement negotiations following the Court's ruling.

The following briefing schedule governs the certification motion: our opposition is due June 16, 2023; Plaintiffs' reply brief is due July 7, 2023; and the hearing is set for July 28, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 34.

II. Summary of Plaintiffs' Key Arguments

A. Common Question — The Auto-Deduction System

The centerpiece of Plaintiffs' certification motion is the contention that AMA's company-wide timekeeping system — the NovaPay Solutions "TimeTrack Pro" platform — creates a uniform common question applicable to all putative class members. Plaintiffs frame the common question as follows:

"Did AMA's systematic auto-deduction of 30 minutes for meal periods, without a reliable mechanism for employees to report missed breaks, result in the systematic denial of meal period premiums across all California facilities?"

Plaintiffs argue that this auto-deduction was applied identically across all seven of AMA's California production facilities: (1) West Hollywood Headquarters; (2) Studio City; (3) Sherman Oaks; (4) Burbank; (5) Hollywood; (6) Santa Monica; and (7) El Segundo. The TimeTrack Pro system was configured to automatically deduct 30 minutes from any employee's recorded work time for shifts of six hours or more, irrespective of whether the employee actually received a compliant, uninterrupted, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes.

In support of this argument, Plaintiffs rely heavily on the California Supreme Court's decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58. In Donohue, the Court held that an employer's practice of rounding employee time entries on meal period punches was impermissible because it systematically favored the employer and could result in employees receiving shortened meal periods without premium pay. Plaintiffs argue that AMA's auto-deduction system is analogous, if not more problematic, because it operates on a blanket assumption that every employee working six hours or more took a compliant break — an assumption Plaintiffs contend is demonstrably false.

Plaintiffs further characterize the "Missed Meal Attestation" feature within TimeTrack Pro as inadequate to cure the deficiency of the auto-deduction. The attestation feature, when activated, prompted employees at the end of their shifts to confirm whether they had taken a compliant meal period and, if not, to flag the missed break so that a one-hour meal period premium could be calculated and paid. However, Plaintiffs note that this feature was not activated at three of the seven California facilities: Facility 2 (Studio City, located at 4024 Penmark Strategy Partners Avenue), Facility 4 (Burbank, located at 3800 West Alameda Avenue), and Facility 7 (El Segundo, located at 888 North Sepulveda Boulevard). At those three facilities, employees had no mechanism within the timekeeping system to report a missed meal period. Even at the four facilities where the attestation feature was active, Plaintiffs note that usage rates were remarkably low: 2.3% at West Hollywood, 4.1% at Sherman Oaks, 1.8% at Hollywood, and 3.7% at Santa Monica.

Plaintiffs argue that a system employees do not know about — or are discouraged from using — is functionally equivalent to no system at all. They contend that the low utilization rates reflect not that employees were taking compliant breaks, but rather that employees were unaware of the feature, were not trained on its use, or were discouraged by supervisors from reporting missed breaks in order to avoid "causing problems" on set.

B. Common Policy Argument

In addition to the auto-deduction system, Plaintiffs assert that AMA applied a single, company-wide meal and rest break policy and a single timekeeping system across all seven facilities and all fourteen production show units. Plaintiffs point to the following evidence of uniformity:

First, AMA's Employee Handbook, last revised in March 2021, was distributed to all non-exempt hourly employees across all seven facilities and contains identical provisions regarding meal and rest periods, timekeeping obligations, and overtime policies. Plaintiffs contend that this uniform written policy is applied (or misapplied) in the same manner at every location.

Second, all putative class members are governed by Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order 12 — the Motion Picture Industry wage order — which sets forth specific requirements for meal and rest periods, hours of work, and overtime compensation applicable to employees in the motion picture industry. The uniform applicability of Wage Order 12 to all class members, Plaintiffs argue, further supports commonality by ensuring that the same legal standards apply across the entire class.

Third, Plaintiffs argue that AMA provided common training materials — or, more precisely, failed to provide adequate training materials — regarding break compliance. Plaintiffs point to the absence of any documented training program specifically addressing the use of the Missed Meal Attestation feature and note that the Employee Handbook's meal and rest break provisions are generic and do not address the specific operational challenges of production environments.

Fourth, Plaintiffs contend that a common supervisory structure flows from AMA's corporate Human Resources department, led by Senior Vice President Lorraine Okafor, through divisional directors and ultimately to individual Unit Production Managers ("UPMs") and Line Producers at each show unit. Plaintiffs argue that this centralized reporting structure means that break policies — and any deficiencies in their implementation — are attributable to AMA's corporate decision-making rather than to idiosyncratic local practices.

The thrust of Plaintiffs' argument is that commonality of policy yields commonality of injury: if AMA's uniform policy was inadequate to ensure compliance with California's meal and rest break requirements, then every employee subject to that policy suffered the same type of harm.

C. Dr. Howard Rennick's Damages Model

Plaintiffs retained Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, based in Palo Alto, California, as their damages expert. Dr. Rennick submitted an expert report dated April 28, 2023, filed in support of the certification motion. Dr. Rennick calculates aggregate damages of approximately $38.6 million, inclusive of $12.2 million in penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The following summarizes Dr. Rennick's methodology by damages category:

Meal Period Premiums. Dr. Rennick treats every auto-deducted meal period — that is, every shift of six hours or more during the class period — as a "missed" meal period requiring a one-hour premium under Labor Code Section 226.7, unless the employee filed a Missed Meal Attestation and the corresponding premium was already paid. According to Dr. Rennick's analysis, the total number of auto-deducted shifts during the class period was approximately 612,000. Of those, approximately 18,400 shifts were corrected through the attestation process, yielding a net figure of approximately 593,600 "missed" meals. At an average hourly rate of approximately $27.50, the resulting meal period premium damages total approximately $16.3 million.

Rest Period Premiums. Dr. Rennick assumes a 50% violation rate for rest periods. This assumption is based on the declarations of the three Named Plaintiffs, each of whom described frequent interruptions or missed rest periods. Applying the 50% rate to the total number of rest-period-eligible shifts during the class period yields approximately 306,000 violations. At the same average hourly rate of approximately $27.50, the rest period premium damages total approximately $8.4 million.

Off-the-Clock Overtime. Dr. Rennick assumes that each non-exempt employee performed an average of 37.5 minutes of uncompensated work per shift, based on the midpoint of the 30- to 45-minute range alleged in the Named Plaintiffs' declarations. Applying the overtime premium rate of 1.5 times the average hourly rate (approximately $41.25) to the estimated off-the-clock time across all shifts during the class period yields adjusted total damages of approximately $12.2 million.

Wage Statement Penalties. Dr. Rennick calculates wage statement penalties under Labor Code Section 226 on a per-pay-period basis, applying statutory penalties for each pay period in which an employee's wage statement failed to accurately reflect hours worked and wages earned as a result of the auto-deduction system.

PAGA Penalties. Dr. Rennick calculates PAGA penalties at $100 per initial violation and $200 per subsequent violation, per pay period per aggrieved employee, consistent with Labor Code Section 2699(f)(2).

Plaintiffs present Dr. Rennick's model as a "common methodology" capable of measuring class-wide damages using common proof — specifically, the TimeTrack Pro data maintained by NovaPay Solutions. Plaintiffs cite Granite Harbor Partners LLC v. Behrend (2013) 569 U.S. 27, arguing that a damages model need not be "perfect" at the certification stage but must merely be "capable of measurement across the entire class" using common proof.

D. Named Plaintiffs' Declarations

Each Named Plaintiff submitted a declaration describing her personal experience working at AMA. The declarations are the primary evidence — aside from the auto-deduction system data itself — offered to demonstrate that class-wide violations occurred. We summarize each declaration below:

Marisol Fuentes. Ms. Fuentes served as a Production Coordinator in AMA's Unscripted Programming Division at the Studio City facility (Facility 2, 4024 Penmark Strategy Partners Avenue). She was employed from March 14, 2019 through August 5, 2022, at an hourly rate of $28.50. Ms. Fuentes testified that she "rarely" received full 30-minute meal periods during shooting days, stating that production demands consistently interrupted or shortened her breaks. She declared that she was unaware of the Missed Meal Attestation feature and was never informed of any mechanism to report missed meal periods through the timekeeping system. This is consistent with the fact that the attestation feature was not activated at Facility 2 during her employment. Ms. Fuentes also described approximately 30 to 45 minutes of pre-shift setup work — including equipment checks, call sheet preparation, and coordination with crew — that she contends was routinely unrecorded in TimeTrack Pro.

Derek Halloran. Mr. Halloran served as a Post-Production Assistant in AMA's Digital Content Division at the Hollywood facility (Facility 5, located on Vine Street). He was employed from June 1, 2020 through November 30, 2022, at an hourly rate of $24.75. Mr. Halloran's declaration is notably more qualified than those of the other Named Plaintiffs. He testified that he "usually" received meal breaks, with the exception of "crunch periods" during which tight delivery deadlines compressed schedules. Mr. Halloran stated that he was aware of the Missed Meal Attestation feature but never used it. When asked during his deposition why he did not use the feature, he acknowledged that he "didn't want to cause problems" with his supervisors by flagging missed breaks. Mr. Halloran also described approximately 15 to 30 minutes of off-the-clock work per shift, primarily related to logging media files and responding to emails before his scheduled start time.

Yesenia Padilla. Ms. Padilla served as a Segment Coordinator in AMA's Live Events Division at the Burbank facility (Facility 4, 3800 West Alameda Avenue). She was employed from January 10, 2018 through May 17, 2022, at an hourly rate of $31.00. Ms. Padilla's declaration is the most detailed and forceful of the three. She testified that meal breaks were "practically impossible" during live productions — including concerts, award shows, and televised live events — due to the non-stop nature of live broadcasting operations. She described a workplace culture in which "everyone knew you didn't get breaks during a show" and testified that supervisors never discussed meal period rights or premium pay obligations with production staff. The attestation feature was not available at Facility 4. Ms. Padilla also described approximately 30 to 45 minutes of pre-show setup and post-show wrap-up work that was routinely unrecorded in TimeTrack Pro, including loading and unloading equipment, coordinating with venue staff, and debriefing with the production team.

Of the three declarations, Ms. Padilla's is by far the most compelling and paints the most vivid picture of systemic break denial. However, as discussed in Section IV below, her departure from AMA on May 17, 2022 — more than six months before the complaint was filed on November 1, 2022 — raises questions about her adequacy as a class representative for current employees and those who continued working at AMA after her departure.

E. Superiority and Manageability

Plaintiffs argue that a class action is the superior method for adjudicating the claims of the putative class. Central to this argument is the contention that individual claims are too small to justify the expense and burden of individual litigation. Plaintiffs calculate that the average recovery per class member under their damages model is approximately $20,865 — an amount they characterize as insufficient to warrant the retention of individual counsel, the costs of individual discovery, and the risks of individual adjudication. We note that our own calculation, based on our preliminary assessment of defensible damages exposure, yields an average per-class-member figure of approximately $3,135, which further underscores Plaintiffs' point about the impracticability of individual litigation.

Plaintiffs also argue that manageability favors class treatment. They point to the fact that the common timekeeping data from TimeTrack Pro is centrally maintained by NovaPay Solutions, under the direction of Marcus Yee, Director of Client Data Services, and can be extracted, analyzed, and applied on a class-wide basis. Combined with AMA's uniform written policies and procedures, Plaintiffs contend that class-wide adjudication is efficient, manageable, and superior to any alternative method of resolving the claims of 1,850 individuals.

III. Assessment of Strengths in Plaintiffs' Motion

Having summarized the principal arguments in Plaintiffs' Motion, we turn to an assessment of the strengths of those arguments. As set forth below, Plaintiffs' case for certification is strongest with respect to the auto-deduction common question and the availability of centralized data. It is moderate with respect to Wage Order 12 uniformity and the strength of the Padilla declaration, though the latter also presents vulnerabilities that we can exploit.

A. Auto-Deduction as Common Question — Strong

The auto-deduction system is the single strongest element of Plaintiffs' case for class certification, and we assess the likelihood that the Court will find it presents at least one common question predominating on the first meal period claim as relatively high.

The strength of this argument lies in its simplicity and its breadth. The TimeTrack Pro auto-deduction operated identically across all seven California facilities — the same configuration, the same 30-minute deduction, and the same six-hour threshold trigger. There was no facility-level customization or variation in how the auto-deduction was applied. Every non-exempt hourly employee who worked a shift of six hours or more had 30 minutes deducted from his or her recorded work time, regardless of whether the employee actually took a compliant, duty-free meal break.

The inconsistent activation of the attestation feature significantly compounds this problem for AMA. The feature was not activated at Facilities 2, 4, and 7, which collectively employed approximately 700 of the approximately 1,850 putative class members during the class period. At those three facilities, there was literally no mechanism within the timekeeping system for employees to report missed breaks and trigger payment of the premium. Moreover, even at the four facilities where the feature was active, usage rates ranged from only 1.8% at Hollywood to 4.1% at Sherman Oaks — uniformly low levels that Plaintiffs will characterize as evidence that the system was either unknown to employees or inadequate in practice.

Under the California Supreme Court's framework in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, the question of whether an employer had a policy or practice that resulted in non-compliant meal periods is amenable to common proof. The Court in Brinker specifically distinguished between cases where an employer maintains a uniform policy that prevents employees from taking compliant breaks (which is amenable to class treatment) and cases where the question is whether individual employees actually took or were prevented from taking breaks (which may not be). Plaintiffs will argue — with considerable force — that the auto-deduction system constitutes the former: a uniform, company-wide practice that systematically fails to compensate employees for missed breaks.

We anticipate that the Court is likely to find that the auto-deduction system presents at least one common question that predominates on the first meal period claim. Our opposition strategy, as outlined in Section VII below, should be calibrated accordingly — focusing not on defeating this argument entirely (which we assess as a low-probability outcome) but rather on containing its reach and preventing Plaintiffs from leveraging it to secure certification of the broader rest period, off-the-clock, and derivative claims.

B. Centralized Data — Strong

The availability of centralized timekeeping data is another significant strength for Plaintiffs. All timekeeping data for the class period is housed in a single system — TimeTrack Pro — maintained by a single vendor, NovaPay Solutions. Marcus Yee, Director of Client Data Services at NovaPay, has been identified as the custodian of this data and has cooperated with both parties in discovery. The data includes shift-level records for every non-exempt hourly employee at every California facility, including clock-in and clock-out times, auto-deduction flags, attestation records (where available), and overtime calculations.

During the discovery phase, AMA produced approximately 147,832 documents totaling approximately 1.2 million pages, and Plaintiffs produced approximately 3,412 documents. The breadth of the production and the centralized nature of the data undermine any argument that class-wide analysis is impracticable or that the claims of individual class members cannot be efficiently resolved on a class-wide basis.

This factor strongly favors Plaintiffs on the manageability prong of the certification analysis. We should acknowledge this strength and not overextend our arguments on manageability grounds, which could undermine our credibility with the Court.

C. Wage Order 12 Uniformity — Moderate

The fact that all putative class members are governed by the same IWC Wage Order — Wage Order 12 (Motion Picture Industry) — supports Plaintiffs' commonality argument to a moderate degree. Wage Order 12 establishes specific requirements for meal and rest periods, overtime compensation, and other working conditions applicable to employees in the motion picture industry. Because all class members are subject to the same statutory and regulatory framework, Plaintiffs can argue that the same legal standards apply to every class member's claims, which simplifies the Court's analysis and supports a finding of commonality.

However, we note that the uniform applicability of Wage Order 12 is necessary but not sufficient for certification. The question is not merely whether the same legal standards apply, but whether those standards were violated in a manner susceptible to class-wide proof — a question that, as we argue below, depends heavily on individualized circumstances.

D. Padilla Declaration — Strong

As noted above, Ms. Padilla's declaration is the strongest and most compelling of the three Named Plaintiff declarations. Her description of the working conditions in AMA's Live Events Division at the Burbank facility (Facility 4) paints a vivid and sympathetic picture of systemic break denial in the context of live television production. Her testimony that meal breaks were "practically impossible" during live shows, combined with the fact that the attestation feature was not activated at her facility, creates a powerful narrative of employer indifference to break compliance.

From the Court's perspective, Ms. Padilla is a compelling representative plaintiff whose experience illustrates the core theory of Plaintiffs' case — that AMA maintained a system that systematically underpaid employees for missed breaks while providing no meaningful mechanism for those employees to seek relief.

However, Ms. Padilla's effectiveness as a class representative is tempered by a significant adequacy issue: she separated from AMA on May 17, 2022, more than six months before the complaint was filed on November 1, 2022. This raises questions about the timeliness of her claims, the representativeness of her experience for current employees, and her ability and motivation to vigorously prosecute the interests of a class that includes employees who continue to work at AMA. We discuss this issue more fully in Section IV.F below.

IV. Assessment of Weaknesses in Plaintiffs' Motion

While Plaintiffs' motion presents a coherent and well-organized case for certification — particularly on the meal period auto-deduction claim — it contains several material weaknesses that, if effectively exploited, should enable us to defeat or significantly narrow certification. We identify seven principal areas of vulnerability.

A. Dr. Rennick's Foundational Assumption — Critical Flaw

The most significant weakness in Plaintiffs' motion lies in the foundational assumption underlying Dr. Rennick's damages model: namely, that every auto-deducted meal period constitutes a "missed" meal period requiring premium pay. This assumption is both logically flawed and empirically unsupported, and it represents the most promising avenue for attacking Plaintiffs' certification motion.

The auto-deduction system was designed to accurately record work time for employees who did take a compliant 30-minute meal break. For an employee who clocks in, works for several hours, takes a full 30-minute duty-free meal period, and then returns to work, the auto-deduction accurately reflects that employee's compensable work time by removing the 30 minutes of non-working meal period time. In such a case, the auto-deduction does not deny the employee any compensation; to the contrary, it correctly records the employee's hours worked.

The auto-deduction creates a problem only for employees who did not actually take a compliant meal break — i.e., employees who worked through their meal period or received only a shortened or interrupted break. For those employees, the auto-deduction improperly reduces their recorded work time and deprives them of both compensable hours and the statutory meal period premium. But to identify those employees, one must determine, on an individual basis, whether each employee actually received a compliant break during each auto-deducted shift. This is precisely the type of individualized inquiry that defeats predominance and undermines class treatment.

Dr. Rennick's model sidesteps this problem by simply treating the existence of the auto-deduction as proof of a violation. In other words, Rennick assumes that because the auto-deduction applied to a shift, the employee on that shift must not have received a compliant break. This is circular reasoning: the auto-deduction is both the alleged wrongful practice and the proof of the resulting harm. In reality, the auto-deduction is neutral — it is consistent with both a compliant break and a non-compliant break.

This flaw is further exposed by the attestation data. At the four facilities where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was active, only 2% to 4% of shifts generated an attestation — meaning that in 96% to 98% of cases, employees who had the ability to report a missed meal period chose not to do so. The most natural inference from this data is that the vast majority of employees at those facilities actually received compliant breaks. Yet Dr. Rennick does not account for this inference. He treats every non-attested shift as a violation, which produces the absurd result that 96% to 98% of employees who declined to report a missed break are nevertheless counted as having been denied one.

This foundational flaw pervades the entirety of the $16.3 million meal period premium calculation and calls into question the reliability of the damages model as a whole. As discussed in Section VII below, Dr. Catherine Lindstrom's rebuttal report will present an alternative calculation that accounts for the attestation data and yields a dramatically lower damages figure of approximately $5.8 million.

B. Rest Period Violation Rate — Entirely Unsupported

Dr. Rennick's assumption of a 50% rest period violation rate is perhaps the weakest element of the entire damages model. The 50% figure is derived solely from the declarations of the three Named Plaintiffs, each of whom described frequent rest period interruptions or denials. There is no statistical basis for extrapolating from three individuals to a class of approximately 1,850 across seven facilities and fourteen show units. No survey data was collected. No random sampling methodology was employed. No empirical analysis of any kind was conducted to validate the 50% assumption.

Moreover, rest periods are not recorded in TimeTrack Pro. This is consistent with standard industry practice — rest periods are paid time, and employers are not required to record them in the same manner as meal periods. While this cuts both ways (AMA cannot point to affirmative records showing compliant rest periods), it means that there is no common data source to support a class-wide violation rate. The only evidence of rest period violations is the anecdotal testimony of three individuals, which cannot, as a matter of law or logic, establish a class-wide violation rate applicable to 1,850 employees performing different roles in different divisions at different facilities.

This is a strong basis for opposing certification of the rest period claim. We should argue that the rest period claim is fundamentally individualized — dependent on each employee's specific role, supervisor, show unit, and production schedule — and that Plaintiffs have failed to offer any common proof that could support class-wide adjudication.

C. Off-the-Clock Claims — Anecdotal Only

Plaintiffs' off-the-clock and overtime claims suffer from a similar deficiency. There is no systemic evidence that AMA maintained a policy requiring, directing, or encouraging off-the-clock work. The Named Plaintiffs describe pre-shift setup (ranging from 30 to 45 minutes) and post-shift wrap-up (ranging from 15 to 30 minutes) that they contend was routinely performed but not recorded in TimeTrack Pro. However, these descriptions reflect the individual experiences of three employees in three different roles at three different facilities, and they cannot be generalized to the class as a whole.

Different employees in different roles at different facilities performed different tasks — or no tasks at all — before and after their scheduled shifts. A Production Coordinator preparing call sheets and checking equipment before a shooting day (as Ms. Fuentes described) is engaged in fundamentally different pre-shift activity than a Post-Production Assistant logging media files (as Mr. Halloran described) or a Segment Coordinator loading equipment for a live event (as Ms. Padilla described). The nature, duration, and compensability of pre-shift and post-shift activity depends on each employee's specific job duties, show unit, call time, and the tasks assigned by his or her supervisor.

Dr. Rennick's assumption of 37.5 minutes of uncompensated work per shift — derived as the midpoint of the 30- to 45-minute range alleged in the Named Plaintiffs' declarations — lacks any empirical basis. It is not grounded in a statistical analysis of actual work patterns, time records, or employee surveys. It is simply the arithmetic average of two figures offered by three individuals, applied uniformly to approximately 1,850 class members across the entire class period.

Furthermore, off-the-clock work is by definition unrecorded in the timekeeping system. There is no field in TimeTrack Pro, no data column in the NovaPay database, and no other common data source that could be used to quantify off-the-clock work on a class-wide basis. This is not a case where a common database can be mined for class-wide evidence of violations. Each employee's off-the-clock work (if any) can only be established through individualized testimony — precisely the type of inquiry that defeats predominance.

D. Facility-by-Facility Variation — Not Adequately Addressed

Plaintiffs' motion does not adequately confront the significant operational variation across AMA's seven California facilities and fourteen show units. This variation is well documented in our case assessment memorandum (November 2022) and has been confirmed through depositions of key AMA personnel, including Lorraine Okafor (SVP, Human Resources), Celine Arroyo (Director of Production Operations), and Karen Fong (Payroll Manager).

The nature of the work performed, and consequently the feasibility of providing compliant meal and rest breaks, varies dramatically across AMA's operations:

• Studio-based shows (e.g., "Kitchen Clash" at West Hollywood HQ, Facility 1) operate in controlled studio environments with predictable 8- to 10-hour workdays and built-in production breaks that naturally align with meal period requirements. Studio-based productions have reliable meal breaks because the production schedule itself incorporates regular downtime for set changes, lighting adjustments, and talent breaks.

• Field-based shows (e.g., "Summit Challenge," coordinated from Burbank, Facility 4) operate on remote locations with 12- to 16-hour shoot days. As Ms. Arroyo testified in her deposition, meal breaks are "scheduled but sometimes difficult to implement on remote locations" due to weather conditions, talent availability, daylight constraints, and logistical challenges inherent in field production.

• Live events (concerts, award shows, and televised live events at Burbank, Facility 4) operate under unique timing constraints imposed by broadcast schedules that cannot be paused or interrupted. Live event employees face the most challenging break-compliance environment because the nature of live broadcasting permits no flexibility in timing.

• Post-production operations (at Facilities 1, 5, and 7) are office-based, with regular schedules and standard business-hours breaks. Post-production employees edit footage, mix audio, apply visual effects, and perform other desk-based tasks in office environments where meal and rest breaks can be taken with relative ease.

• Digital content operations (Sherman Oaks, Facility 3) involve hybrid schedules that combine office-based editorial work with periodic on-location shoots, resulting in variable break compliance depending on the day's activities.

These operational differences are reflected in the data. Missed-meal attestation rates varied significantly across show units, ranging from 2.1% for "Kitchen Clash" (a studio-based show) to 18.7% for "Summit Challenge" (a field-based show), according to data extracted from NovaPay. This nearly ninefold difference in attestation rates across show units strongly suggests that the employee experience varies dramatically depending on the type of production, and that a single, class-wide violation rate — whether 100% (as Rennick assumes for meal periods) or 50% (as he assumes for rest periods) — is inappropriate.

Moreover, each of AMA's fourteen show units had its own Unit Production Manager ("UPM") or Line Producer with discretion over break scheduling, crew management, and production logistics. The decisions made by these individual UPMs and Line Producers — regarding when breaks were scheduled, how breaks were communicated, and how break compliance was enforced — are inherently individualized and resist class-wide adjudication.

Plaintiffs attempt to sidestep this variation by arguing that the "policy" is uniform and that variations in implementation are irrelevant to the certification inquiry. But this conflates policy with practice. Under Brinker, the employer's obligation is to provide a compliant meal period — to make it available and to relieve the employee of all duties. Whether an employer satisfied this obligation depends not on the existence of a uniform written policy but on whether, as a practical matter, each employee was afforded the opportunity to take a compliant break. That inquiry is inherently fact-specific and depends on the employee's show unit, facility, supervisor, production schedule, and role.

Dr. Rajesh Makhija's forthcoming expert report (due May 19, 2023) will present statistical evidence of this variability, demonstrating significant differences in shift lengths, overtime frequency, missed-meal attestation rates, and supervisory practices across show units and facilities. This evidence will be central to our predominance argument.

E. Typicality Problems

The three Named Plaintiffs worked in three different divisions at three different facilities, and their experiences are not typical of each other — let alone of the approximately 1,850 putative class members.

• Marisol Fuentes: Unscripted Programming Division, Studio City (Facility 2). Ms. Fuentes worked in a production role involving unscripted television programming in a studio-adjacent environment. Her facility lacked the Missed Meal Attestation feature.

• Derek Halloran: Digital Content Division, Post-Production, Hollywood (Facility 5). Mr. Halloran worked in a post-production role involving digital content editing in an office-based environment. His facility had the attestation feature, which he was aware of but chose not to use.

• Yesenia Padilla: Live Events Division, Burbank (Facility 4). Ms. Padilla worked in a live events production role involving concerts and award shows in a live broadcasting environment. Her facility lacked the attestation feature.

These three employees occupied different roles, worked in different divisions, experienced different production environments, and had different relationships to the attestation feature. Their experiences cannot be reconciled into a single "typical" class member experience.

Mr. Halloran's testimony is particularly problematic for Plaintiffs' class narrative. His acknowledgment that he "usually" received meal breaks — except during "crunch periods" — directly contradicts the theory that AMA's policies and practices resulted in systemic, class-wide meal period violations. Furthermore, his admission that he was aware of the attestation feature but chose not to use it because he "didn't want to cause problems" suggests that at least some class members had access to a functional mechanism for reporting missed breaks but elected not to use it for personal reasons. If Halloran is typical of a significant subset of the class, then the low attestation usage rates may reflect voluntary non-use rather than systemic employer misconduct.

Ms. Fuentes and Ms. Padilla, on the other hand, worked at facilities where the attestation feature was not activated. Their experience — in which no mechanism existed for reporting missed breaks — is fundamentally different from the experience of employees at the four facilities where the feature was active. Employees at attestation-active facilities had a tool that, however imperfect, provided a means of flagging missed breaks and triggering premium pay. Employees at attestation-inactive facilities had no such tool. These are qualitatively different experiences that give rise to qualitatively different claims.

We should argue that the Named Plaintiffs fail the typicality requirement of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 because their individual circumstances are not representative of the class as a whole.

F. Adequacy Concerns

Beyond typicality, Plaintiffs' motion raises several adequacy concerns that we should present to the Court.

First, Ms. Padilla separated from AMA on May 17, 2022 — more than six months before the complaint was filed on November 1, 2022. While former employees are not categorically barred from serving as class representatives, Ms. Padilla's departure raises questions about whether she has sufficient stake in the litigation to vigorously represent the interests of current employees. Current employees have ongoing interests in workplace policy reforms, compliance monitoring, and continued employment relationships that a former employee like Ms. Padilla does not share.

Second, there is a potential conflict of interest between current and former employees within the putative class. Current employees may benefit from injunctive relief compelling AMA to modify its timekeeping practices, implement the attestation feature at all facilities, and provide training on break compliance — remedies that are meaningless to former employees like Ms. Padilla, who seek only backward-looking monetary damages. These divergent interests could lead to litigation decisions that favor one group at the expense of the other.

Third, there is a potential conflict between employees at attestation-active facilities (Facilities 1, 3, 5, and 6) and employees at attestation-inactive facilities (Facilities 2, 4, and 7). Employees at the three facilities where the attestation feature was not activated may have stronger claims — because they had literally no mechanism to report missed breaks — than employees at the four facilities where the feature was available but underutilized. A class representative drawn from one group may not adequately represent the interests of the other.

G. Derivative Claims

The wage statement claim (Labor Code § 226), waiting time penalties claim (Labor Code §§ 201–203), minimum wage claim (Labor Code §§ 1197 and 1197.1), and UCL claim (Business and Professions Code § 17200) are entirely derivative of the underlying meal period, rest period, and overtime claims. Each of these derivative claims depends on a predicate finding that AMA underpaid its employees — whether through meal period premium denials, rest period premium denials, or off-the-clock work.

If the underlying substantive claims require individualized inquiry — as we contend they do with respect to rest periods and off-the-clock work — then the derivative claims necessarily require the same individualized inquiry. An employee's wage statement is inaccurate only if her underlying wages were miscalculated; waiting time penalties accrue only if an employee was owed unpaid wages at termination; a minimum wage violation occurs only if an employee's effective hourly rate fell below the minimum wage as a result of uncompensated hours. Each of these determinations depends on the same individualized facts that govern the underlying claims.

We should argue that the derivative claims cannot be certified independently of the underlying claims from which they derive and that, to the extent the Court declines to certify the rest period, off-the-clock, or overtime claims, the corresponding derivative claims should likewise be denied.

V. Assessment of the *Northgate Enterprises* / *Brinker* Framework

A. Plaintiffs' Use of *Northgate Enterprises*

Plaintiffs invoke Granite Harbor Partners LLC v. Behrend (2013) 569 U.S. 27 for the proposition that a damages model need not be "perfect" at the certification stage and that methodological disputes about the precise calculation of damages are not a basis for denying certification. Plaintiffs characterize Northgate Enterprises as requiring only that the damages model be "capable of measurement across the entire class" — a standard they argue Dr. Rennick's model satisfies because it relies on common TimeTrack Pro data.

This is a selective and incomplete reading of Northgate Enterprises. The Supreme Court's holding in Northgate Enterprises was significantly more demanding than Plaintiffs acknowledge. The Court held that a damages model that is not "consistent with [the plaintiffs'] theory of liability" cannot serve as the basis for class certification, even if it purports to measure class-wide damages using common data. Northgate Enterprises, 569 U.S. at 35. In other words, there must be a match between the theory of liability and the damages methodology; a model that measures damages arising from conduct different from the conduct alleged — or that assumes facts inconsistent with the plaintiffs' theory — fails the Northgate Enterprises standard.

Dr. Rennick's model fails this test in at least one critical respect. His foundational assumption — that every auto-deducted meal period constitutes a "missed" meal period requiring premium pay — does not match a theory of liability that requires proof that each individual employee actually missed a compliant break. Under Plaintiffs' own theory, the alleged harm is that employees who did not receive compliant breaks were not compensated with meal period premiums. But the damages model does not distinguish between employees who missed breaks and employees who took compliant breaks — it simply treats every auto-deducted shift as a violation. This is precisely the type of disconnect between theory and methodology that Northgate Enterprises prohibits.

We acknowledge, however, that California courts have generally been more liberal than federal courts in applying Northgate Enterprises. California state courts — including courts in the Los Angeles Superior Court — have frequently declined to deny certification solely on the basis of disputed damages methodology, particularly where the dispute goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of the expert's analysis. Judge Escobedo is unlikely to deny certification based solely on Dr. Rennick's flawed methodology if Plaintiffs can otherwise establish predominance, commonality, and the other certification requirements.

For this reason, the more effective approach is not to present the Northgate Enterprises argument as a standalone basis for denying certification, but rather to weave it into our predominance analysis. We should argue that Dr. Rennick's model is not a viable "common methodology" — that it does not demonstrate that damages can be measured on a class-wide basis without individualized inquiry — as part of our broader argument that common questions do not predominate over individual questions.

B. *Brinker* Analysis

The Brinker decision provides the governing framework for evaluating meal and rest period claims in the class certification context. Under Brinker, 53 Cal.4th at 1040, the employer's obligation is to "provide" a meal period — that is, to make it available by relieving the employee of all duties — not to "ensure" that the employee actually takes the break. An employer satisfies its obligation by authorizing and permitting the break; it is not required to police whether employees actually leave their workstations or to force employees to take breaks they choose to forego.

Plaintiffs argue that the auto-deduction system is a uniform practice susceptible to class-wide evaluation under Brinker. They contend that the system — by automatically deducting 30 minutes without verifying whether a compliant break was actually taken — constitutes a company-wide practice that prevents employees from receiving the benefit of the meal period premium when breaks are missed.

Our response must carefully distinguish between two different concepts: a substantive policy regarding break provision and a timekeeping system for recording work time. The auto-deduction is the latter. It is a data-recording mechanism, not a directive regarding whether employees should or should not take breaks. The substantive question — whether each employee was actually provided a compliant, duty-free meal break on each shift — depends on individualized circumstances: the employee's show unit, the production schedule for the day, the decisions made by the UPM or Line Producer regarding break timing, and the employee's own conduct.

This distinction between a "uniform policy" and a "uniform system" may prove important in the Court's analysis. If the Court views the auto-deduction as a substantive policy — a decision by AMA to systematically avoid paying meal period premiums by assuming all breaks were compliant — then certification is likely. If the Court views the auto-deduction as merely a recording mechanism — one component of a timekeeping system that also includes the attestation feature (where activated) — then the focus shifts to the substantive question of whether breaks were provided, which we argue requires individualized inquiry.

We should frame our opposition around this distinction, acknowledging that the auto-deduction is a common feature of AMA's timekeeping system while arguing that the question of whether employees were actually provided compliant breaks — the operative legal question under Brinker — cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.

VI. Predicted Outcome

Based on our analysis of Plaintiffs' motion, the applicable legal standards, the strengths and weaknesses of each party's position, and our assessment of Judge Escobedo's likely approach (informed by his rulings in prior wage-and-hour certification motions), we predict the following outcomes:

• We assess an approximately 35% probability of defeating certification entirely across all seven causes of action. While we believe we have strong arguments against certification of the rest period, off-the-clock, and derivative claims, the strength of the auto-deduction common question makes it unlikely that the Court will deny certification in its entirety.

• We assess an approximately 55–60% probability of certification on the first meal period auto-deduction claim — the core claim based on the auto-deduction system's failure to verify compliant breaks and the inadequacy of the attestation mechanism.

• We assess an approximately 25–30% probability of certification on the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, and derivative claims. These claims rest on anecdotal evidence and unsupported statistical assumptions that we believe the Court will find insufficient to establish predominance.

Most likely outcome: Partial certification. We predict that the Court will certify a class (or subclass) on the first meal period auto-deduction claim while denying certification of the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, waiting time, and possibly wage statement claims. The UCL claim is likely to be certified as derivative of the meal period claim, to the extent the meal period claim is certified.

We note that the PAGA claim proceeds as a representative action under a separate procedural framework (Labor Code §§ 2698–2699.8) and is not subject to the same certification requirements as the class claims. The PAGA claim will therefore proceed regardless of the Court's certification ruling, though the scope of any PAGA recovery will be influenced by the resolution of the underlying substantive claims.

VII. Recommended Opposition Strategy

A. Lead with Individualized Inquiry / Predominance

Our primary argument in opposition should be that individual variation across AMA's fourteen show units and seven facilities — in scheduling practices, supervisory decisions, production demands, and meal and rest break implementation — means that common questions do not predominate over individual questions. This is our strongest and most broadly applicable argument, and it should serve as the organizational framework for the entire opposition brief.

We should support this argument with the statistical analysis being prepared by Dr. Rajesh Makhija of Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC (Mountain View, California). Dr. Makhija's expert report, due May 19, 2023, will present empirical evidence of significant variability in shift lengths, overtime frequency, missed-meal attestation rates, and supervisory practices across show units and facilities. Specifically, we anticipate that Dr. Makhija's analysis will demonstrate that:

• Missed-meal attestation rates varied by nearly a factor of nine across show units (from 2.1% for studio-based shows to 18.7% for field-based shows), indicating that the employee experience is not uniform.

• Shift lengths varied significantly by production type, with studio-based shows averaging 8 to 10 hours, post-production averaging 8 hours, and field-based and live event productions averaging 12 to 16 hours.

• Overtime frequency and duration varied by facility and show unit, undermining the assumption of a uniform off-the-clock work pattern.

• Supervisory practices regarding break scheduling and enforcement differed across show units based on the individual discretion of the responsible UPM or Line Producer.

We should further support our predominance argument with facility-by-facility and show-by-show evidence presented through declarations of three key AMA witnesses:

• Lorraine Okafor (Senior Vice President of Human Resources) will testify regarding AMA's break policies, the history and deployment of the attestation feature, the reasons for its non-activation at certain facilities, the volume and nature of employee complaints regarding break compliance (14 formal complaints during the class period, spanning 5 of 7 facilities and 8 of 14 show units), and AMA's remedial efforts.

• Celine Arroyo (Director of Production Operations) will testify regarding the operational differences between studio-based, field-based, live event, post-production, and digital content operations; the role and discretion of UPMs and Line Producers in scheduling breaks; and the specific production-related factors that affect break compliance at each type of operation.

• Karen Fong (Payroll Manager) will testify regarding the technical details of the TimeTrack Pro system, the configuration and operation of the auto-deduction feature, the attestation feature's functionality and usage data by facility and show unit, and the process for calculating and paying meal period premiums when attestations were filed.

B. Attack Dr. Rennick's Methodology

Our second line of attack should target the foundational assumptions and methodology of Dr. Rennick's damages model. As discussed in Sections IV.A through IV.C above, the model suffers from several critical flaws that undermine its reliability as a "common methodology" for measuring class-wide damages.

We will present the rebuttal report of Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc. (Los Angeles, California), due June 9, 2023. Dr. Lindstrom will offer an alternative damages calculation that accounts for the attestation data, adjusts for the likely proportion of compliant breaks, and applies empirically grounded assumptions regarding rest period violation rates and off-the-clock work. We anticipate that Dr. Lindstrom's analysis will yield total damages of approximately $5.8 million — less than one-sixth of Dr. Rennick's $38.6 million figure.

In addition to Dr. Lindstrom's rebuttal, we will file evidentiary objections to Dr. Rennick's declaration under California Evidence Code Sections 801 and 802 and the California Supreme Court's decision in Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747. Under Sargon, expert opinion testimony must be based on matter that is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in forming opinions on the subject, and the court serves a "gatekeeping" function to exclude expert testimony that is speculative, conjectural, or based on assumptions without evidentiary foundation.

We propose the following Sargon objections:

1. Dr. Rennick's assumption that every auto-deducted meal period was a "missed" meal period lacks evidentiary foundation and is inconsistent with the available attestation data, which shows that 96–98% of employees at attestation-active facilities did not report missed breaks.

2. Dr. Rennick's assumption of a 50% rest period violation rate, extrapolated from the declarations of three Named Plaintiffs to a class of approximately 1,850, is speculative and lacks any statistical or empirical basis.

3. Dr. Rennick's PAGA penalty calculation assumes imposition of maximum penalties without accounting for the trial court's discretion under Labor Code Section 2699(e)(2) to reduce penalties if the award would be "unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory."

We note that a standalone Sargon motion to exclude Dr. Rennick's testimony is not recommended at this stage. We assess that such a motion would have approximately a 30–35% chance of success, and a denial could be perceived by the Court as an implicit endorsement of Rennick's methodology. The more effective approach is to present our Sargon arguments within the body of the certification opposition, where they will serve as part of our broader challenge to the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' "common methodology" under the predominance prong.

C. Challenge Typicality and Adequacy

As discussed in Sections IV.E and IV.F above, the Named Plaintiffs present typicality and adequacy issues that we should raise in opposition. Specifically:

• The three Named Plaintiffs worked at three different facilities in three different divisions, had different relationships to the attestation feature, and described different workplace experiences. They are not typical of each other, let alone of the 1,850-member putative class.

• Mr. Halloran's deposition admissions — that he "usually" received meal breaks, was aware of the attestation feature, and chose not to use it because he "didn't want to cause problems" — directly undermine the class narrative of systemic break denial and employer obstruction.

• Ms. Fuentes and Ms. Padilla worked at facilities where the attestation feature was not activated (Facilities 2 and 4). Their experience is not typical of employees at the four facilities where the feature was active and available for use.

• Ms. Padilla's separation from AMA in May 2022 — more than six months before the complaint was filed — raises questions about the staleness of her claims and her ability to adequately represent the interests of current employees.

D. Argue for Narrowest Possible Certification (Fallback Position)

If the Court signals an inclination to grant certification — which we assess as the most likely outcome on the first meal period claim — we should be prepared to argue for the narrowest possible scope of certification. Specifically:

• Limit certification to the first meal period claim only. The second meal period (applicable to shifts exceeding ten hours) depends on whether individual employees worked shifts of sufficient length to trigger the second meal period obligation. Whether an employee's shift exceeded ten hours is a production-schedule-dependent, show-unit-specific, and day-specific inquiry that cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.

• Consider arguing for a facility-based subclass. Employees at Facilities 2, 4, and 7 — where the attestation feature was not activated — have the strongest meal period claims because they had no mechanism to report missed breaks. We could argue that certification should be limited to a subclass of employees at those three facilities (approximately 700 individuals). However, we recognize that the Court may reject this argument on the ground that the low utilization rates at the attestation-active facilities (2–4%) render the feature largely meaningless at all facilities, not just the three where it was disabled.

• Argue that rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, waiting time, and wage statement claims should be denied. Each of these claims requires individualized proof that cannot be supplied through common evidence. The rest period claim relies on an unsupported 50% violation rate. The off-the-clock claim relies on anecdotal testimony and an arbitrary per-shift assumption. The derivative claims stand or fall with the underlying claims from which they derive.

• PAGA claim. The PAGA claim should proceed as a representative action under the Labor Code, not as a class action. PAGA claims are governed by a different procedural framework (Labor Code

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 555-4200 Facsimile: (310) 555-4201
CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Renata Vasquez, Partner
FROM: Devon Archer, Senior Associate, and Nadia Petrov, Associate
DATE: April 20, 2023
RE: Analysis of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion — Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV38214 (Consolidated)
C&H Matter No.: 1017-00004
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
On April 14, 2023, Plaintiffs Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "Named Plaintiffs") filed their Motion for Class Certification before the Honorable Raymond Escobedo, Department 34, of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The Motion is the central procedural milestone in this wage-and-hour class action against our client, Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA"), and warrants careful analysis and a robust opposition strategy.
Plaintiffs seek certification of a class defined as: "All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. who worked in the State of California at any time from November 1, 2018 through the date of preliminary approval of the class settlement." Based on records produced in discovery, the estimated class encompasses approximately 1,850 individuals employed across AMA's seven California production facilities during the proposed class period.
The Motion seeks certification on all seven causes of action set forth in the operative Second Amended Complaint: (1) meal period violations under California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; (2) rest period violations under California Labor Code Section 226.7; (3) overtime and off-the-clock work under California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194; (4) minimum wage violations under California Labor Code Sections 1197 and 1197.1; (5) wage statement violations under California Labor Code Section 226; (6) waiting time penalties under California Labor Code Sections 201 through 203; and (7) unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (the "UCL" claim).
Lead class counsel is the firm of Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP, represented principally by Marco Castellano, Diane Salas, and Trevor Kim. PAGA co-counsel is the Veltrano Employment Law Group PC, represented by Sandra Higuera.
This memorandum provides a comprehensive analysis of the Motion, identifies the key arguments advanced by Plaintiffs, assesses the relative strengths and weaknesses of those arguments, and recommends a detailed opposition strategy. As discussed more fully below, we conclude that the most probable outcome is partial certification — the Court is likely to certify a class on the first meal period auto-deduction claim while denying certification on the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, and derivative claims, which rest on anecdotal evidence and unsupported assumptions. Our opposition strategy should be calibrated to achieve the narrowest possible scope of certification and to position AMA favorably for either summary judgment or settlement negotiations following the Court's ruling.
The following briefing schedule governs the certification motion: our opposition is due June 16, 2023; Plaintiffs' reply brief is due July 7, 2023; and the hearing is set for July 28, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 34.
II. Summary of Plaintiffs' Key Arguments
A. Common Question — The Auto-Deduction System
The centerpiece of Plaintiffs' certification motion is the contention that AMA's company-wide timekeeping system — the NovaPay Solutions "TimeTrack Pro" platform — creates a uniform common question applicable to all putative class members. Plaintiffs frame the common question as follows:
"Did AMA's systematic auto-deduction of 30 minutes for meal periods, without a reliable mechanism for employees to report missed breaks, result in the systematic denial of meal period premiums across all California facilities?"
Plaintiffs argue that this auto-deduction was applied identically across all seven of AMA's California production facilities: (1) West Hollywood Headquarters; (2) Studio City; (3) Sherman Oaks; (4) Burbank; (5) Hollywood; (6) Santa Monica; and (7) El Segundo. The TimeTrack Pro system was configured to automatically deduct 30 minutes from any employee's recorded work time for shifts of six hours or more, irrespective of whether the employee actually received a compliant, uninterrupted, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes.
In support of this argument, Plaintiffs rely heavily on the California Supreme Court's decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58. In Donohue, the Court held that an employer's practice of rounding employee time entries on meal period punches was impermissible because it systematically favored the employer and could result in employees receiving shortened meal periods without premium pay. Plaintiffs argue that AMA's auto-deduction system is analogous, if not more problematic, because it operates on a blanket assumption that every employee working six hours or more took a compliant break — an assumption Plaintiffs contend is demonstrably false.
Plaintiffs further characterize the "Missed Meal Attestation" feature within TimeTrack Pro as inadequate to cure the deficiency of the auto-deduction. The attestation feature, when activated, prompted employees at the end of their shifts to confirm whether they had taken a compliant meal period and, if not, to flag the missed break so that a one-hour meal period premium could be calculated and paid. However, Plaintiffs note that this feature was not activated at three of the seven California facilities: Facility 2 (Studio City, located at 4024 Penmark Strategy Partners Avenue), Facility 4 (Burbank, located at 3800 West Alameda Avenue), and Facility 7 (El Segundo, located at 888 North Sepulveda Boulevard). At those three facilities, employees had no mechanism within the timekeeping system to report a missed meal period. Even at the four facilities where the attestation feature was active, Plaintiffs note that usage rates were remarkably low: 2.3% at West Hollywood, 4.1% at Sherman Oaks, 1.8% at Hollywood, and 3.7% at Santa Monica.
Plaintiffs argue that a system employees do not know about — or are discouraged from using — is functionally equivalent to no system at all. They contend that the low utilization rates reflect not that employees were taking compliant breaks, but rather that employees were unaware of the feature, were not trained on its use, or were discouraged by supervisors from reporting missed breaks in order to avoid "causing problems" on set.
B. Common Policy Argument
In addition to the auto-deduction system, Plaintiffs assert that AMA applied a single, company-wide meal and rest break policy and a single timekeeping system across all seven facilities and all fourteen production show units. Plaintiffs point to the following evidence of uniformity:
First, AMA's Employee Handbook, last revised in March 2021, was distributed to all non-exempt hourly employees across all seven facilities and contains identical provisions regarding meal and rest periods, timekeeping obligations, and overtime policies. Plaintiffs contend that this uniform written policy is applied (or misapplied) in the same manner at every location.
Second, all putative class members are governed by Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order 12 — the Motion Picture Industry wage order — which sets forth specific requirements for meal and rest periods, hours of work, and overtime compensation applicable to employees in the motion picture industry. The uniform applicability of Wage Order 12 to all class members, Plaintiffs argue, further supports commonality by ensuring that the same legal standards apply across the entire class.
Third, Plaintiffs argue that AMA provided common training materials — or, more precisely, failed to provide adequate training materials — regarding break compliance. Plaintiffs point to the absence of any documented training program specifically addressing the use of the Missed Meal Attestation feature and note that the Employee Handbook's meal and rest break provisions are generic and do not address the specific operational challenges of production environments.
Fourth, Plaintiffs contend that a common supervisory structure flows from AMA's corporate Human Resources department, led by Senior Vice President Lorraine Okafor, through divisional directors and ultimately to individual Unit Production Managers ("UPMs") and Line Producers at each show unit. Plaintiffs argue that this centralized reporting structure means that break policies — and any deficiencies in their implementation — are attributable to AMA's corporate decision-making rather than to idiosyncratic local practices.
The thrust of Plaintiffs' argument is that commonality of policy yields commonality of injury: if AMA's uniform policy was inadequate to ensure compliance with California's meal and rest break requirements, then every employee subject to that policy suffered the same type of harm.
C. Dr. Howard Rennick's Damages Model
Plaintiffs retained Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, based in Palo Alto, California, as their damages expert. Dr. Rennick submitted an expert report dated April 28, 2023, filed in support of the certification motion. Dr. Rennick calculates aggregate damages of approximately $38.6 million, inclusive of $12.2 million in penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The following summarizes Dr. Rennick's methodology by damages category:
Meal Period Premiums. Dr. Rennick treats every auto-deducted meal period — that is, every shift of six hours or more during the class period — as a "missed" meal period requiring a one-hour premium under Labor Code Section 226.7, unless the employee filed a Missed Meal Attestation and the corresponding premium was already paid. According to Dr. Rennick's analysis, the total number of auto-deducted shifts during the class period was approximately 612,000. Of those, approximately 18,400 shifts were corrected through the attestation process, yielding a net figure of approximately 593,600 "missed" meals. At an average hourly rate of approximately $27.50, the resulting meal period premium damages total approximately $16.3 million.
Rest Period Premiums. Dr. Rennick assumes a 50% violation rate for rest periods. This assumption is based on the declarations of the three Named Plaintiffs, each of whom described frequent interruptions or missed rest periods. Applying the 50% rate to the total number of rest-period-eligible shifts during the class period yields approximately 306,000 violations. At the same average hourly rate of approximately $27.50, the rest period premium damages total approximately $8.4 million.
Off-the-Clock Overtime. Dr. Rennick assumes that each non-exempt employee performed an average of 37.5 minutes of uncompensated work per shift, based on the midpoint of the 30- to 45-minute range alleged in the Named Plaintiffs' declarations. Applying the overtime premium rate of 1.5 times the average hourly rate (approximately $41.25) to the estimated off-the-clock time across all shifts during the class period yields adjusted total damages of approximately $12.2 million.
Wage Statement Penalties. Dr. Rennick calculates wage statement penalties under Labor Code Section 226 on a per-pay-period basis, applying statutory penalties for each pay period in which an employee's wage statement failed to accurately reflect hours worked and wages earned as a result of the auto-deduction system.
PAGA Penalties. Dr. Rennick calculates PAGA penalties at $100 per initial violation and $200 per subsequent violation, per pay period per aggrieved employee, consistent with Labor Code Section 2699(f)(2).
Plaintiffs present Dr. Rennick's model as a "common methodology" capable of measuring class-wide damages using common proof — specifically, the TimeTrack Pro data maintained by NovaPay Solutions. Plaintiffs cite Granite Harbor Partners LLC v. Behrend (2013) 569 U.S. 27, arguing that a damages model need not be "perfect" at the certification stage but must merely be "capable of measurement across the entire class" using common proof.
D. Named Plaintiffs' Declarations
Each Named Plaintiff submitted a declaration describing her personal experience working at AMA. The declarations are the primary evidence — aside from the auto-deduction system data itself — offered to demonstrate that class-wide violations occurred. We summarize each declaration below:
Marisol Fuentes. Ms. Fuentes served as a Production Coordinator in AMA's Unscripted Programming Division at the Studio City facility (Facility 2, 4024 Penmark Strategy Partners Avenue). She was employed from March 14, 2019 through August 5, 2022, at an hourly rate of $28.50. Ms. Fuentes testified that she "rarely" received full 30-minute meal periods during shooting days, stating that production demands consistently interrupted or shortened her breaks. She declared that she was unaware of the Missed Meal Attestation feature and was never informed of any mechanism to report missed meal periods through the timekeeping system. This is consistent with the fact that the attestation feature was not activated at Facility 2 during her employment. Ms. Fuentes also described approximately 30 to 45 minutes of pre-shift setup work — including equipment checks, call sheet preparation, and coordination with crew — that she contends was routinely unrecorded in TimeTrack Pro.
Derek Halloran. Mr. Halloran served as a Post-Production Assistant in AMA's Digital Content Division at the Hollywood facility (Facility 5, located on Vine Street). He was employed from June 1, 2020 through November 30, 2022, at an hourly rate of $24.75. Mr. Halloran's declaration is notably more qualified than those of the other Named Plaintiffs. He testified that he "usually" received meal breaks, with the exception of "crunch periods" during which tight delivery deadlines compressed schedules. Mr. Halloran stated that he was aware of the Missed Meal Attestation feature but never used it. When asked during his deposition why he did not use the feature, he acknowledged that he "didn't want to cause problems" with his supervisors by flagging missed breaks. Mr. Halloran also described approximately 15 to 30 minutes of off-the-clock work per shift, primarily related to logging media files and responding to emails before his scheduled start time.
Yesenia Padilla. Ms. Padilla served as a Segment Coordinator in AMA's Live Events Division at the Burbank facility (Facility 4, 3800 West Alameda Avenue). She was employed from January 10, 2018 through May 17, 2022, at an hourly rate of $31.00. Ms. Padilla's declaration is the most detailed and forceful of the three. She testified that meal breaks were "practically impossible" during live productions — including concerts, award shows, and televised live events — due to the non-stop nature of live broadcasting operations. She described a workplace culture in which "everyone knew you didn't get breaks during a show" and testified that supervisors never discussed meal period rights or premium pay obligations with production staff. The attestation feature was not available at Facility 4. Ms. Padilla also described approximately 30 to 45 minutes of pre-show setup and post-show wrap-up work that was routinely unrecorded in TimeTrack Pro, including loading and unloading equipment, coordinating with venue staff, and debriefing with the production team.
Of the three declarations, Ms. Padilla's is by far the most compelling and paints the most vivid picture of systemic break denial. However, as discussed in Section IV below, her departure from AMA on May 17, 2022 — more than six months before the complaint was filed on November 1, 2022 — raises questions about her adequacy as a class representative for current employees and those who continued working at AMA after her departure.
E. Superiority and Manageability
Plaintiffs argue that a class action is the superior method for adjudicating the claims of the putative class. Central to this argument is the contention that individual claims are too small to justify the expense and burden of individual litigation. Plaintiffs calculate that the average recovery per class member under their damages model is approximately $20,865 — an amount they characterize as insufficient to warrant the retention of individual counsel, the costs of individual discovery, and the risks of individual adjudication. We note that our own calculation, based on our preliminary assessment of defensible damages exposure, yields an average per-class-member figure of approximately $3,135, which further underscores Plaintiffs' point about the impracticability of individual litigation.
Plaintiffs also argue that manageability favors class treatment. They point to the fact that the common timekeeping data from TimeTrack Pro is centrally maintained by NovaPay Solutions, under the direction of Marcus Yee, Director of Client Data Services, and can be extracted, analyzed, and applied on a class-wide basis. Combined with AMA's uniform written policies and procedures, Plaintiffs contend that class-wide adjudication is efficient, manageable, and superior to any alternative method of resolving the claims of 1,850 individuals.
III. Assessment of Strengths in Plaintiffs' Motion
Having summarized the principal arguments in Plaintiffs' Motion, we turn to an assessment of the strengths of those arguments. As set forth below, Plaintiffs' case for certification is strongest with respect to the auto-deduction common question and the availability of centralized data. It is moderate with respect to Wage Order 12 uniformity and the strength of the Padilla declaration, though the latter also presents vulnerabilities that we can exploit.
A. Auto-Deduction as Common Question — Strong
The auto-deduction system is the single strongest element of Plaintiffs' case for class certification, and we assess the likelihood that the Court will find it presents at least one common question predominating on the first meal period claim as relatively high.
The strength of this argument lies in its simplicity and its breadth. The TimeTrack Pro auto-deduction operated identically across all seven California facilities — the same configuration, the same 30-minute deduction, and the same six-hour threshold trigger. There was no facility-level customization or variation in how the auto-deduction was applied. Every non-exempt hourly employee who worked a shift of six hours or more had 30 minutes deducted from his or her recorded work time, regardless of whether the employee actually took a compliant, duty-free meal break.
The inconsistent activation of the attestation feature significantly compounds this problem for AMA. The feature was not activated at Facilities 2, 4, and 7, which collectively employed approximately 700 of the approximately 1,850 putative class members during the class period. At those three facilities, there was literally no mechanism within the timekeeping system for employees to report missed breaks and trigger payment of the premium. Moreover, even at the four facilities where the feature was active, usage rates ranged from only 1.8% at Hollywood to 4.1% at Sherman Oaks — uniformly low levels that Plaintiffs will characterize as evidence that the system was either unknown to employees or inadequate in practice.
Under the California Supreme Court's framework in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, the question of whether an employer had a policy or practice that resulted in non-compliant meal periods is amenable to common proof. The Court in Brinker specifically distinguished between cases where an employer maintains a uniform policy that prevents employees from taking compliant breaks (which is amenable to class treatment) and cases where the question is whether individual employees actually took or were prevented from taking breaks (which may not be). Plaintiffs will argue — with considerable force — that the auto-deduction system constitutes the former: a uniform, company-wide practice that systematically fails to compensate employees for missed breaks.
We anticipate that the Court is likely to find that the auto-deduction system presents at least one common question that predominates on the first meal period claim. Our opposition strategy, as outlined in Section VII below, should be calibrated accordingly — focusing not on defeating this argument entirely (which we assess as a low-probability outcome) but rather on containing its reach and preventing Plaintiffs from leveraging it to secure certification of the broader rest period, off-the-clock, and derivative claims.
B. Centralized Data — Strong
The availability of centralized timekeeping data is another significant strength for Plaintiffs. All timekeeping data for the class period is housed in a single system — TimeTrack Pro — maintained by a single vendor, NovaPay Solutions. Marcus Yee, Director of Client Data Services at NovaPay, has been identified as the custodian of this data and has cooperated with both parties in discovery. The data includes shift-level records for every non-exempt hourly employee at every California facility, including clock-in and clock-out times, auto-deduction flags, attestation records (where available), and overtime calculations.
During the discovery phase, AMA produced approximately 147,832 documents totaling approximately 1.2 million pages, and Plaintiffs produced approximately 3,412 documents. The breadth of the production and the centralized nature of the data undermine any argument that class-wide analysis is impracticable or that the claims of individual class members cannot be efficiently resolved on a class-wide basis.
This factor strongly favors Plaintiffs on the manageability prong of the certification analysis. We should acknowledge this strength and not overextend our arguments on manageability grounds, which could undermine our credibility with the Court.
C. Wage Order 12 Uniformity — Moderate
The fact that all putative class members are governed by the same IWC Wage Order — Wage Order 12 (Motion Picture Industry) — supports Plaintiffs' commonality argument to a moderate degree. Wage Order 12 establishes specific requirements for meal and rest periods, overtime compensation, and other working conditions applicable to employees in the motion picture industry. Because all class members are subject to the same statutory and regulatory framework, Plaintiffs can argue that the same legal standards apply to every class member's claims, which simplifies the Court's analysis and supports a finding of commonality.
However, we note that the uniform applicability of Wage Order 12 is necessary but not sufficient for certification. The question is not merely whether the same legal standards apply, but whether those standards were violated in a manner susceptible to class-wide proof — a question that, as we argue below, depends heavily on individualized circumstances.
D. Padilla Declaration — Strong
As noted above, Ms. Padilla's declaration is the strongest and most compelling of the three Named Plaintiff declarations. Her description of the working conditions in AMA's Live Events Division at the Burbank facility (Facility 4) paints a vivid and sympathetic picture of systemic break denial in the context of live television production. Her testimony that meal breaks were "practically impossible" during live shows, combined with the fact that the attestation feature was not activated at her facility, creates a powerful narrative of employer indifference to break compliance.
From the Court's perspective, Ms. Padilla is a compelling representative plaintiff whose experience illustrates the core theory of Plaintiffs' case — that AMA maintained a system that systematically underpaid employees for missed breaks while providing no meaningful mechanism for those employees to seek relief.
However, Ms. Padilla's effectiveness as a class representative is tempered by a significant adequacy issue: she separated from AMA on May 17, 2022, more than six months before the complaint was filed on November 1, 2022. This raises questions about the timeliness of her claims, the representativeness of her experience for current employees, and her ability and motivation to vigorously prosecute the interests of a class that includes employees who continue to work at AMA. We discuss this issue more fully in Section IV.F below.
IV. Assessment of Weaknesses in Plaintiffs' Motion
While Plaintiffs' motion presents a coherent and well-organized case for certification — particularly on the meal period auto-deduction claim — it contains several material weaknesses that, if effectively exploited, should enable us to defeat or significantly narrow certification. We identify seven principal areas of vulnerability.
A. Dr. Rennick's Foundational Assumption — Critical Flaw
The most significant weakness in Plaintiffs' motion lies in the foundational assumption underlying Dr. Rennick's damages model: namely, that every auto-deducted meal period constitutes a "missed" meal period requiring premium pay. This assumption is both logically flawed and empirically unsupported, and it represents the most promising avenue for attacking Plaintiffs' certification motion.
The auto-deduction system was designed to accurately record work time for employees who did take a compliant 30-minute meal break. For an employee who clocks in, works for several hours, takes a full 30-minute duty-free meal period, and then returns to work, the auto-deduction accurately reflects that employee's compensable work time by removing the 30 minutes of non-working meal period time. In such a case, the auto-deduction does not deny the employee any compensation; to the contrary, it correctly records the employee's hours worked.
The auto-deduction creates a problem only for employees who did not actually take a compliant meal break — i.e., employees who worked through their meal period or received only a shortened or interrupted break. For those employees, the auto-deduction improperly reduces their recorded work time and deprives them of both compensable hours and the statutory meal period premium. But to identify those employees, one must determine, on an individual basis, whether each employee actually received a compliant break during each auto-deducted shift. This is precisely the type of individualized inquiry that defeats predominance and undermines class treatment.
Dr. Rennick's model sidesteps this problem by simply treating the existence of the auto-deduction as proof of a violation. In other words, Rennick assumes that because the auto-deduction applied to a shift, the employee on that shift must not have received a compliant break. This is circular reasoning: the auto-deduction is both the alleged wrongful practice and the proof of the resulting harm. In reality, the auto-deduction is neutral — it is consistent with both a compliant break and a non-compliant break.
This flaw is further exposed by the attestation data. At the four facilities where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was active, only 2% to 4% of shifts generated an attestation — meaning that in 96% to 98% of cases, employees who had the ability to report a missed meal period chose not to do so. The most natural inference from this data is that the vast majority of employees at those facilities actually received compliant breaks. Yet Dr. Rennick does not account for this inference. He treats every non-attested shift as a violation, which produces the absurd result that 96% to 98% of employees who declined to report a missed break are nevertheless counted as having been denied one.
This foundational flaw pervades the entirety of the $16.3 million meal period premium calculation and calls into question the reliability of the damages model as a whole. As discussed in Section VII below, Dr. Catherine Lindstrom's rebuttal report will present an alternative calculation that accounts for the attestation data and yields a dramatically lower damages figure of approximately $5.8 million.
B. Rest Period Violation Rate — Entirely Unsupported
Dr. Rennick's assumption of a 50% rest period violation rate is perhaps the weakest element of the entire damages model. The 50% figure is derived solely from the declarations of the three Named Plaintiffs, each of whom described frequent rest period interruptions or denials. There is no statistical basis for extrapolating from three individuals to a class of approximately 1,850 across seven facilities and fourteen show units. No survey data was collected. No random sampling methodology was employed. No empirical analysis of any kind was conducted to validate the 50% assumption.
Moreover, rest periods are not recorded in TimeTrack Pro. This is consistent with standard industry practice — rest periods are paid time, and employers are not required to record them in the same manner as meal periods. While this cuts both ways (AMA cannot point to affirmative records showing compliant rest periods), it means that there is no common data source to support a class-wide violation rate. The only evidence of rest period violations is the anecdotal testimony of three individuals, which cannot, as a matter of law or logic, establish a class-wide violation rate applicable to 1,850 employees performing different roles in different divisions at different facilities.
This is a strong basis for opposing certification of the rest period claim. We should argue that the rest period claim is fundamentally individualized — dependent on each employee's specific role, supervisor, show unit, and production schedule — and that Plaintiffs have failed to offer any common proof that could support class-wide adjudication.
C. Off-the-Clock Claims — Anecdotal Only
Plaintiffs' off-the-clock and overtime claims suffer from a similar deficiency. There is no systemic evidence that AMA maintained a policy requiring, directing, or encouraging off-the-clock work. The Named Plaintiffs describe pre-shift setup (ranging from 30 to 45 minutes) and post-shift wrap-up (ranging from 15 to 30 minutes) that they contend was routinely performed but not recorded in TimeTrack Pro. However, these descriptions reflect the individual experiences of three employees in three different roles at three different facilities, and they cannot be generalized to the class as a whole.
Different employees in different roles at different facilities performed different tasks — or no tasks at all — before and after their scheduled shifts. A Production Coordinator preparing call sheets and checking equipment before a shooting day (as Ms. Fuentes described) is engaged in fundamentally different pre-shift activity than a Post-Production Assistant logging media files (as Mr. Halloran described) or a Segment Coordinator loading equipment for a live event (as Ms. Padilla described). The nature, duration, and compensability of pre-shift and post-shift activity depends on each employee's specific job duties, show unit, call time, and the tasks assigned by his or her supervisor.
Dr. Rennick's assumption of 37.5 minutes of uncompensated work per shift — derived as the midpoint of the 30- to 45-minute range alleged in the Named Plaintiffs' declarations — lacks any empirical basis. It is not grounded in a statistical analysis of actual work patterns, time records, or employee surveys. It is simply the arithmetic average of two figures offered by three individuals, applied uniformly to approximately 1,850 class members across the entire class period.
Furthermore, off-the-clock work is by definition unrecorded in the timekeeping system. There is no field in TimeTrack Pro, no data column in the NovaPay database, and no other common data source that could be used to quantify off-the-clock work on a class-wide basis. This is not a case where a common database can be mined for class-wide evidence of violations. Each employee's off-the-clock work (if any) can only be established through individualized testimony — precisely the type of inquiry that defeats predominance.
D. Facility-by-Facility Variation — Not Adequately Addressed
Plaintiffs' motion does not adequately confront the significant operational variation across AMA's seven California facilities and fourteen show units. This variation is well documented in our case assessment memorandum (November 2022) and has been confirmed through depositions of key AMA personnel, including Lorraine Okafor (SVP, Human Resources), Celine Arroyo (Director of Production Operations), and Karen Fong (Payroll Manager).
The nature of the work performed, and consequently the feasibility of providing compliant meal and rest breaks, varies dramatically across AMA's operations:
• Studio-based shows (e.g., "Kitchen Clash" at West Hollywood HQ, Facility 1) operate in controlled studio environments with predictable 8- to 10-hour workdays and built-in production breaks that naturally align with meal period requirements. Studio-based productions have reliable meal breaks because the production schedule itself incorporates regular downtime for set changes, lighting adjustments, and talent breaks.
• Field-based shows (e.g., "Summit Challenge," coordinated from Burbank, Facility 4) operate on remote locations with 12- to 16-hour shoot days. As Ms. Arroyo testified in her deposition, meal breaks are "scheduled but sometimes difficult to implement on remote locations" due to weather conditions, talent availability, daylight constraints, and logistical challenges inherent in field production.
• Live events (concerts, award shows, and televised live events at Burbank, Facility 4) operate under unique timing constraints imposed by broadcast schedules that cannot be paused or interrupted. Live event employees face the most challenging break-compliance environment because the nature of live broadcasting permits no flexibility in timing.
• Post-production operations (at Facilities 1, 5, and 7) are office-based, with regular schedules and standard business-hours breaks. Post-production employees edit footage, mix audio, apply visual effects, and perform other desk-based tasks in office environments where meal and rest breaks can be taken with relative ease.
• Digital content operations (Sherman Oaks, Facility 3) involve hybrid schedules that combine office-based editorial work with periodic on-location shoots, resulting in variable break compliance depending on the day's activities.
These operational differences are reflected in the data. Missed-meal attestation rates varied significantly across show units, ranging from 2.1% for "Kitchen Clash" (a studio-based show) to 18.7% for "Summit Challenge" (a field-based show), according to data extracted from NovaPay. This nearly ninefold difference in attestation rates across show units strongly suggests that the employee experience varies dramatically depending on the type of production, and that a single, class-wide violation rate — whether 100% (as Rennick assumes for meal periods) or 50% (as he assumes for rest periods) — is inappropriate.
Moreover, each of AMA's fourteen show units had its own Unit Production Manager ("UPM") or Line Producer with discretion over break scheduling, crew management, and production logistics. The decisions made by these individual UPMs and Line Producers — regarding when breaks were scheduled, how breaks were communicated, and how break compliance was enforced — are inherently individualized and resist class-wide adjudication.
Plaintiffs attempt to sidestep this variation by arguing that the "policy" is uniform and that variations in implementation are irrelevant to the certification inquiry. But this conflates policy with practice. Under Brinker, the employer's obligation is to provide a compliant meal period — to make it available and to relieve the employee of all duties. Whether an employer satisfied this obligation depends not on the existence of a uniform written policy but on whether, as a practical matter, each employee was afforded the opportunity to take a compliant break. That inquiry is inherently fact-specific and depends on the employee's show unit, facility, supervisor, production schedule, and role.
Dr. Rajesh Makhija's forthcoming expert report (due May 19, 2023) will present statistical evidence of this variability, demonstrating significant differences in shift lengths, overtime frequency, missed-meal attestation rates, and supervisory practices across show units and facilities. This evidence will be central to our predominance argument.
E. Typicality Problems
The three Named Plaintiffs worked in three different divisions at three different facilities, and their experiences are not typical of each other — let alone of the approximately 1,850 putative class members.
• Marisol Fuentes: Unscripted Programming Division, Studio City (Facility 2). Ms. Fuentes worked in a production role involving unscripted television programming in a studio-adjacent environment. Her facility lacked the Missed Meal Attestation feature.
• Derek Halloran: Digital Content Division, Post-Production, Hollywood (Facility 5). Mr. Halloran worked in a post-production role involving digital content editing in an office-based environment. His facility had the attestation feature, which he was aware of but chose not to use.
• Yesenia Padilla: Live Events Division, Burbank (Facility 4). Ms. Padilla worked in a live events production role involving concerts and award shows in a live broadcasting environment. Her facility lacked the attestation feature.
These three employees occupied different roles, worked in different divisions, experienced different production environments, and had different relationships to the attestation feature. Their experiences cannot be reconciled into a single "typical" class member experience.
Mr. Halloran's testimony is particularly problematic for Plaintiffs' class narrative. His acknowledgment that he "usually" received meal breaks — except during "crunch periods" — directly contradicts the theory that AMA's policies and practices resulted in systemic, class-wide meal period violations. Furthermore, his admission that he was aware of the attestation feature but chose not to use it because he "didn't want to cause problems" suggests that at least some class members had access to a functional mechanism for reporting missed breaks but elected not to use it for personal reasons. If Halloran is typical of a significant subset of the class, then the low attestation usage rates may reflect voluntary non-use rather than systemic employer misconduct.
Ms. Fuentes and Ms. Padilla, on the other hand, worked at facilities where the attestation feature was not activated. Their experience — in which no mechanism existed for reporting missed breaks — is fundamentally different from the experience of employees at the four facilities where the feature was active. Employees at attestation-active facilities had a tool that, however imperfect, provided a means of flagging missed breaks and triggering premium pay. Employees at attestation-inactive facilities had no such tool. These are qualitatively different experiences that give rise to qualitatively different claims.
We should argue that the Named Plaintiffs fail the typicality requirement of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 because their individual circumstances are not representative of the class as a whole.
F. Adequacy Concerns
Beyond typicality, Plaintiffs' motion raises several adequacy concerns that we should present to the Court.
First, Ms. Padilla separated from AMA on May 17, 2022 — more than six months before the complaint was filed on November 1, 2022. While former employees are not categorically barred from serving as class representatives, Ms. Padilla's departure raises questions about whether she has sufficient stake in the litigation to vigorously represent the interests of current employees. Current employees have ongoing interests in workplace policy reforms, compliance monitoring, and continued employment relationships that a former employee like Ms. Padilla does not share.
Second, there is a potential conflict of interest between current and former employees within the putative class. Current employees may benefit from injunctive relief compelling AMA to modify its timekeeping practices, implement the attestation feature at all facilities, and provide training on break compliance — remedies that are meaningless to former employees like Ms. Padilla, who seek only backward-looking monetary damages. These divergent interests could lead to litigation decisions that favor one group at the expense of the other.
Third, there is a potential conflict between employees at attestation-active facilities (Facilities 1, 3, 5, and 6) and employees at attestation-inactive facilities (Facilities 2, 4, and 7). Employees at the three facilities where the attestation feature was not activated may have stronger claims — because they had literally no mechanism to report missed breaks — than employees at the four facilities where the feature was available but underutilized. A class representative drawn from one group may not adequately represent the interests of the other.
G. Derivative Claims
The wage statement claim (Labor Code § 226), waiting time penalties claim (Labor Code §§ 201–203), minimum wage claim (Labor Code §§ 1197 and 1197.1), and UCL claim (Business and Professions Code § 17200) are entirely derivative of the underlying meal period, rest period, and overtime claims. Each of these derivative claims depends on a predicate finding that AMA underpaid its employees — whether through meal period premium denials, rest period premium denials, or off-the-clock work.
If the underlying substantive claims require individualized inquiry — as we contend they do with respect to rest periods and off-the-clock work — then the derivative claims necessarily require the same individualized inquiry. An employee's wage statement is inaccurate only if her underlying wages were miscalculated; waiting time penalties accrue only if an employee was owed unpaid wages at termination; a minimum wage violation occurs only if an employee's effective hourly rate fell below the minimum wage as a result of uncompensated hours. Each of these determinations depends on the same individualized facts that govern the underlying claims.
We should argue that the derivative claims cannot be certified independently of the underlying claims from which they derive and that, to the extent the Court declines to certify the rest period, off-the-clock, or overtime claims, the corresponding derivative claims should likewise be denied.
V. Assessment of the *Northgate Enterprises* / *Brinker* Framework
A. Plaintiffs' Use of *Northgate Enterprises*
Plaintiffs invoke Granite Harbor Partners LLC v. Behrend (2013) 569 U.S. 27 for the proposition that a damages model need not be "perfect" at the certification stage and that methodological disputes about the precise calculation of damages are not a basis for denying certification. Plaintiffs characterize Northgate Enterprises as requiring only that the damages model be "capable of measurement across the entire class" — a standard they argue Dr. Rennick's model satisfies because it relies on common TimeTrack Pro data.
This is a selective and incomplete reading of Northgate Enterprises. The Supreme Court's holding in Northgate Enterprises was significantly more demanding than Plaintiffs acknowledge. The Court held that a damages model that is not "consistent with [the plaintiffs'] theory of liability" cannot serve as the basis for class certification, even if it purports to measure class-wide damages using common data. Northgate Enterprises, 569 U.S. at 35. In other words, there must be a match between the theory of liability and the damages methodology; a model that measures damages arising from conduct different from the conduct alleged — or that assumes facts inconsistent with the plaintiffs' theory — fails the Northgate Enterprises standard.
Dr. Rennick's model fails this test in at least one critical respect. His foundational assumption — that every auto-deducted meal period constitutes a "missed" meal period requiring premium pay — does not match a theory of liability that requires proof that each individual employee actually missed a compliant break. Under Plaintiffs' own theory, the alleged harm is that employees who did not receive compliant breaks were not compensated with meal period premiums. But the damages model does not distinguish between employees who missed breaks and employees who took compliant breaks — it simply treats every auto-deducted shift as a violation. This is precisely the type of disconnect between theory and methodology that Northgate Enterprises prohibits.
We acknowledge, however, that California courts have generally been more liberal than federal courts in applying Northgate Enterprises. California state courts — including courts in the Los Angeles Superior Court — have frequently declined to deny certification solely on the basis of disputed damages methodology, particularly where the dispute goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of the expert's analysis. Judge Escobedo is unlikely to deny certification based solely on Dr. Rennick's flawed methodology if Plaintiffs can otherwise establish predominance, commonality, and the other certification requirements.
For this reason, the more effective approach is not to present the Northgate Enterprises argument as a standalone basis for denying certification, but rather to weave it into our predominance analysis. We should argue that Dr. Rennick's model is not a viable "common methodology" — that it does not demonstrate that damages can be measured on a class-wide basis without individualized inquiry — as part of our broader argument that common questions do not predominate over individual questions.
B. *Brinker* Analysis
The Brinker decision provides the governing framework for evaluating meal and rest period claims in the class certification context. Under Brinker, 53 Cal.4th at 1040, the employer's obligation is to "provide" a meal period — that is, to make it available by relieving the employee of all duties — not to "ensure" that the employee actually takes the break. An employer satisfies its obligation by authorizing and permitting the break; it is not required to police whether employees actually leave their workstations or to force employees to take breaks they choose to forego.
Plaintiffs argue that the auto-deduction system is a uniform practice susceptible to class-wide evaluation under Brinker. They contend that the system — by automatically deducting 30 minutes without verifying whether a compliant break was actually taken — constitutes a company-wide practice that prevents employees from receiving the benefit of the meal period premium when breaks are missed.
Our response must carefully distinguish between two different concepts: a substantive policy regarding break provision and a timekeeping system for recording work time. The auto-deduction is the latter. It is a data-recording mechanism, not a directive regarding whether employees should or should not take breaks. The substantive question — whether each employee was actually provided a compliant, duty-free meal break on each shift — depends on individualized circumstances: the employee's show unit, the production schedule for the day, the decisions made by the UPM or Line Producer regarding break timing, and the employee's own conduct.
This distinction between a "uniform policy" and a "uniform system" may prove important in the Court's analysis. If the Court views the auto-deduction as a substantive policy — a decision by AMA to systematically avoid paying meal period premiums by assuming all breaks were compliant — then certification is likely. If the Court views the auto-deduction as merely a recording mechanism — one component of a timekeeping system that also includes the attestation feature (where activated) — then the focus shifts to the substantive question of whether breaks were provided, which we argue requires individualized inquiry.
We should frame our opposition around this distinction, acknowledging that the auto-deduction is a common feature of AMA's timekeeping system while arguing that the question of whether employees were actually provided compliant breaks — the operative legal question under Brinker — cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.
VI. Predicted Outcome
Based on our analysis of Plaintiffs' motion, the applicable legal standards, the strengths and weaknesses of each party's position, and our assessment of Judge Escobedo's likely approach (informed by his rulings in prior wage-and-hour certification motions), we predict the following outcomes:
• We assess an approximately 35% probability of defeating certification entirely across all seven causes of action. While we believe we have strong arguments against certification of the rest period, off-the-clock, and derivative claims, the strength of the auto-deduction common question makes it unlikely that the Court will deny certification in its entirety.
• We assess an approximately 55–60% probability of certification on the first meal period auto-deduction claim — the core claim based on the auto-deduction system's failure to verify compliant breaks and the inadequacy of the attestation mechanism.
• We assess an approximately 25–30% probability of certification on the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, and derivative claims. These claims rest on anecdotal evidence and unsupported statistical assumptions that we believe the Court will find insufficient to establish predominance.
Most likely outcome: Partial certification. We predict that the Court will certify a class (or subclass) on the first meal period auto-deduction claim while denying certification of the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, waiting time, and possibly wage statement claims. The UCL claim is likely to be certified as derivative of the meal period claim, to the extent the meal period claim is certified.
We note that the PAGA claim proceeds as a representative action under a separate procedural framework (Labor Code §§ 2698–2699.8) and is not subject to the same certification requirements as the class claims. The PAGA claim will therefore proceed regardless of the Court's certification ruling, though the scope of any PAGA recovery will be influenced by the resolution of the underlying substantive claims.
VII. Recommended Opposition Strategy
A. Lead with Individualized Inquiry / Predominance
Our primary argument in opposition should be that individual variation across AMA's fourteen show units and seven facilities — in scheduling practices, supervisory decisions, production demands, and meal and rest break implementation — means that common questions do not predominate over individual questions. This is our strongest and most broadly applicable argument, and it should serve as the organizational framework for the entire opposition brief.
We should support this argument with the statistical analysis being prepared by Dr. Rajesh Makhija of Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC (Mountain View, California). Dr. Makhija's expert report, due May 19, 2023, will present empirical evidence of significant variability in shift lengths, overtime frequency, missed-meal attestation rates, and supervisory practices across show units and facilities. Specifically, we anticipate that Dr. Makhija's analysis will demonstrate that:
• Missed-meal attestation rates varied by nearly a factor of nine across show units (from 2.1% for studio-based shows to 18.7% for field-based shows), indicating that the employee experience is not uniform.
• Shift lengths varied significantly by production type, with studio-based shows averaging 8 to 10 hours, post-production averaging 8 hours, and field-based and live event productions averaging 12 to 16 hours.
• Overtime frequency and duration varied by facility and show unit, undermining the assumption of a uniform off-the-clock work pattern.
• Supervisory practices regarding break scheduling and enforcement differed across show units based on the individual discretion of the responsible UPM or Line Producer.
We should further support our predominance argument with facility-by-facility and show-by-show evidence presented through declarations of three key AMA witnesses:
• Lorraine Okafor (Senior Vice President of Human Resources) will testify regarding AMA's break policies, the history and deployment of the attestation feature, the reasons for its non-activation at certain facilities, the volume and nature of employee complaints regarding break compliance (14 formal complaints during the class period, spanning 5 of 7 facilities and 8 of 14 show units), and AMA's remedial efforts.
• Celine Arroyo (Director of Production Operations) will testify regarding the operational differences between studio-based, field-based, live event, post-production, and digital content operations; the role and discretion of UPMs and Line Producers in scheduling breaks; and the specific production-related factors that affect break compliance at each type of operation.
• Karen Fong (Payroll Manager) will testify regarding the technical details of the TimeTrack Pro system, the configuration and operation of the auto-deduction feature, the attestation feature's functionality and usage data by facility and show unit, and the process for calculating and paying meal period premiums when attestations were filed.
B. Attack Dr. Rennick's Methodology
Our second line of attack should target the foundational assumptions and methodology of Dr. Rennick's damages model. As discussed in Sections IV.A through IV.C above, the model suffers from several critical flaws that undermine its reliability as a "common methodology" for measuring class-wide damages.
We will present the rebuttal report of Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc. (Los Angeles, California), due June 9, 2023. Dr. Lindstrom will offer an alternative damages calculation that accounts for the attestation data, adjusts for the likely proportion of compliant breaks, and applies empirically grounded assumptions regarding rest period violation rates and off-the-clock work. We anticipate that Dr. Lindstrom's analysis will yield total damages of approximately $5.8 million — less than one-sixth of Dr. Rennick's $38.6 million figure.
In addition to Dr. Lindstrom's rebuttal, we will file evidentiary objections to Dr. Rennick's declaration under California Evidence Code Sections 801 and 802 and the California Supreme Court's decision in Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747. Under Sargon, expert opinion testimony must be based on matter that is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in forming opinions on the subject, and the court serves a "gatekeeping" function to exclude expert testimony that is speculative, conjectural, or based on assumptions without evidentiary foundation.
We propose the following Sargon objections:
1. Dr. Rennick's assumption that every auto-deducted meal period was a "missed" meal period lacks evidentiary foundation and is inconsistent with the available attestation data, which shows that 96–98% of employees at attestation-active facilities did not report missed breaks.
2. Dr. Rennick's assumption of a 50% rest period violation rate, extrapolated from the declarations of three Named Plaintiffs to a class of approximately 1,850, is speculative and lacks any statistical or empirical basis.
3. Dr. Rennick's PAGA penalty calculation assumes imposition of maximum penalties without accounting for the trial court's discretion under Labor Code Section 2699(e)(2) to reduce penalties if the award would be "unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory."
We note that a standalone Sargon motion to exclude Dr. Rennick's testimony is not recommended at this stage. We assess that such a motion would have approximately a 30–35% chance of success, and a denial could be perceived by the Court as an implicit endorsement of Rennick's methodology. The more effective approach is to present our Sargon arguments within the body of the certification opposition, where they will serve as part of our broader challenge to the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' "common methodology" under the predominance prong.
C. Challenge Typicality and Adequacy
As discussed in Sections IV.E and IV.F above, the Named Plaintiffs present typicality and adequacy issues that we should raise in opposition. Specifically:
• The three Named Plaintiffs worked at three different facilities in three different divisions, had different relationships to the attestation feature, and described different workplace experiences. They are not typical of each other, let alone of the 1,850-member putative class.
• Mr. Halloran's deposition admissions — that he "usually" received meal breaks, was aware of the attestation feature, and chose not to use it because he "didn't want to cause problems" — directly undermine the class narrative of systemic break denial and employer obstruction.
• Ms. Fuentes and Ms. Padilla worked at facilities where the attestation feature was not activated (Facilities 2 and 4). Their experience is not typical of employees at the four facilities where the feature was active and available for use.
• Ms. Padilla's separation from AMA in May 2022 — more than six months before the complaint was filed — raises questions about the staleness of her claims and her ability to adequately represent the interests of current employees.
D. Argue for Narrowest Possible Certification (Fallback Position)
If the Court signals an inclination to grant certification — which we assess as the most likely outcome on the first meal period claim — we should be prepared to argue for the narrowest possible scope of certification. Specifically:
• Limit certification to the first meal period claim only. The second meal period (applicable to shifts exceeding ten hours) depends on whether individual employees worked shifts of sufficient length to trigger the second meal period obligation. Whether an employee's shift exceeded ten hours is a production-schedule-dependent, show-unit-specific, and day-specific inquiry that cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.
• Consider arguing for a facility-based subclass. Employees at Facilities 2, 4, and 7 — where the attestation feature was not activated — have the strongest meal period claims because they had no mechanism to report missed breaks. We could argue that certification should be limited to a subclass of employees at those three facilities (approximately 700 individuals). However, we recognize that the Court may reject this argument on the ground that the low utilization rates at the attestation-active facilities (2–4%) render the feature largely meaningless at all facilities, not just the three where it was disabled.
• Argue that rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, waiting time, and wage statement claims should be denied. Each of these claims requires individualized proof that cannot be supplied through common evidence. The rest period claim relies on an unsupported 50% violation rate. The off-the-clock claim relies on anecdotal testimony and an arbitrary per-shift assumption. The derivative claims stand or fall with the underlying claims from which they derive.
• PAGA claim. The PAGA claim should proceed as a representative action under the Labor Code, not as a class action. PAGA claims are governed by a different procedural framework (Labor Code

MEMORANDUM

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts