DEBRA OUELLETTE, ET AL, APPELLANTS,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., ET AL, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Current and former hourly Wal-Mart employees sought class certification for claims involving unpaid off-the-clock work and missing breaks. The trial court denied certification based on individualized damages claims, but the appellate court affirmed on different grounds—that the proposed class was overbroad because it included employees who never worked off the clock.
The court affirmed the denial of class certification, but on the ground that the proposed class was overbroad because it included employees who never worked off the clock and therefore had no interest in the lawsuit. The court rejected the trial court's reasoning that individualized damages claims prevent certification, holding that individualized damages do not bar class certification and that management tools are available to address such issues.
[1] Individualized damages issues do not prevent a finding that common issues in a class action case predominate.
[2] A trial court has various management tools available to address individualized damages issues in a class action, including bifurcating trials, appointing a special master…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the individualized nature of their damages claims should not bar certification of the class”
The court's rejection of the trial court's primary rationale for denying class certification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants are current and former hourly employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in Florida who alleged the company required them to work off the clock wit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Class Certification cases and more on FLexlaw
POLSTON, J.
Appellants are current and former hourly employees of appellee Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. who have filed suit on behalf of themselves and a class of all current and former hourly employees of Wal-Mart in Florida. The appellants, alleging inter alia that Wal-Mart required them to work “off the clock” without compensation and did not provide them with promised rest and meal breaks, brought causes of action under theories of breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and Florida statutory violations. The appellants seek review of the trial court’s order denying their amended motion for certification of class action. We affirm the trial court’s ruling, but on different grounds.
The trial court denied the motion for class certification because each class member would have an individualized claim for damages requiring proof and a separate trial. We agree with appellants that the individualized nature of their damages claims should not bar certification of the class. See Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F. 3d 1241, 1259, 1273 (11th Cir.2004) (recognizing that “ ‘individualized damages issues do[ ] not prevent a finding that the common issues in the case predominate’ ”; “ ‘[tjhere are a number of management tools available to a [trial] court to address any individualized damages issues that might arise in a class action, including: (1) bifurcating liability and damage trials with the same or different juries; (2) appointing a magistrate judge or special master to preside over individual damages proceedings; (3) decertifying the class after the liability trial and providing notice to class members concerning how they may proceed to prove damages; (4) creating subclasses; or (5) altering or amending the class’ ”); Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So. 2d 888, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (stating that “[e]ntitlement to different amounts of damages is not fatal to a class action”; “[s]hould it become appropriate, the court may divide the class into subclasses to resolve these issues”).
However, because appellants seek to certify an overbroad class of all current and former hourly Wal-Mart employees in Florida on or subsequent to July 13, 1997, we affirm. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Bailey, 808 N.E. 2d 1198, 1204 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (ruling that a class defined as “[a]ll current and former hourly employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (including its operating divisions Sam’s Club and Wal-Mart Supercenters) in the State of Indiana during the period August 1, 1998 to present” is overbroad because it includes members who never worked off the clock and therefore have no interest in the lawsuit). Our ruling is without prejudice to appellants redefining the class on remand. Id. at 1207.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 2011)…onality requirement. See Morgan, 33 So. 3d at 64 (citing Leszczynski v. Allianz Ins., 176 F.R.D. 659, 671 (S.D.Fla.1997)). Individualized damage inquiries will also not preclude class certification. See id. at 65; Ouellette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 888 So. 2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Broin, 641 So. 2d at 891 (“Entitlement to different amounts of damages is not fatal to a class action.” (citing Cohen v. Camino Sheridan, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1212, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985))). Rather, the commonality requiremen…
-
Morgan v. Coats, 33 So. 3d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…ks performing services for the benefit of the sheriffs office, such issues go to the determination of damages rather than to liability. And individualized damages inquiries do not preclude class certification. See Ouellette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 888 So. 2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). It is clear that each class member would have claims predicated upon the same course of conduct by the sheriff and that such claims would be based upon the same legal theories. Accordingly, the circuit court erred when it fo…
-
Disc. Sleep OF Ocala, LLC v. City OF Ocala, 245 So. 3d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…ity requirement. See Morgan, 33 So. 3d at 64 (citing Leszczynski v. Allianz Ins., 176 F.R.D. 659, 671 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ). Individualized damage inquiries will also not preclude class certification. See id. at 65 ; Ouellette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 888 So. 2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ; Broin, 641 So. 2d at 891 ("Entitlement to different amounts of damages is not fatal to a class action." (citing Cohen v. Camino Sheridan, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1212, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) )). Id. Instead, the purpose of the…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Leonard J. Klay, M.D. v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004)