Motion to Certify Class Certification; Motion to Deny Class Certification; Trial Setting Conference
Browse all Motion for Class Certification rulings statewide →
substantive or procedural rights that I may have to bring or participate in an action brought on a class or collective basis”].)
Courts routinely dismiss class claims while ruling on a motion to compel arbitration when the arbitration agreement contains an enforceable class waiver. (See, e.g., Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 361, 366; see also Kinecta Alternative Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 506, 510-511, 518-519 [dismissing class claims when an arbitration agreement governed by the FAA does not authorize class arbitration of disputes and the court orders arbitration of a plaintiff’s individual claims].)
Therefore, Plaintiff’s class claims against Defendant are hereby DISMISSED.
This action is STAYED until the arbitration is had pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.
An ADR review hearing is scheduled for March 4, 2027 at 9:30AM in Department CX102. The parties shall submit a joint status report 10 days in advance of the hearing.
Defendant shall give notice of this ruling. 112 Medicredit Wage and 1. Motion to Certify Class Certification (ROA 464) Hour Cases 2. Motion to Deny Class Certification (ROA 457) 3. Trial Setting Conference
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s amended revised proposed class notice (ROA #633 at Exh. A) submitted in response to the Court’s 5/21/2026 minute order. The Court notes that the amended revised notice incorporates Defendants’ edits. (Id. at p. 3.)
The Court CONTINUES the parties’ cross-motions on class certification to July, 23 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX102 and ORDERS Plaintiff to submit a further revised proposed class notice that addresses the deficiencies below.
To recap, at the last hearing on 5/21/2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a revised proposed class notice that “clearly and adequately explains to class members (1) the substance of the “inclusive dates” wage statement claim as to which class certification is being granted; (2) all the remedies available under Labor Code section 226(e)(1); (3) the limited recovery sought in this case; and (4) the resulting forfeiture of the right to seek greater actual damages if the class member does not opt out.” (ROA #603.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff’s amended revised class notice (ROA #633, Exh. A) does not adequately address these points.
1. As to “the substance of the ‘inclusive dates’ wage statement claim as to which class certification [has been] granted”:
• The revised class notice states in several places that the class definition is “a current or former non-exempt employee of Medicredit, Inc. and/or Parallon Revenue Cycle Services, Inc. in California and received a wage statement reflecting one or more ‘BonRetOT’ payments at any time from April 23, 2020 to May 21, 2026.” (Not., passim.)
• But in § 3 (“What is this Class claim about?”), the description of the claim simply states:
The Class claim is based on Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants violated the California Labor Code by issuing incomplete and inaccurate wage statements. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to include the necessary inclusive dates in wage statements when issuing retroactive true-up payments.
This description in § 3 does not adequately explain what “retroactive true-up payments” are; how such payments are related to the “one or more ‘BonRetOT’ payments” reflected on wage statements that is part of the class definition; or what “inclusive dates” means, including what Labor Code section 226 requires to appear on wage statements and what Plaintiff alleges Defendants did that violates section 226. Without such information, the notice does not clearly and adequately explain to class members what the claim is about so that each member can make an informed decision as to whether to remain in or opt out of the class, which includes being able to readily determine whether the class member has suffered any actual damages that they may wish to pursue instead of the statutory penalties.
2. As to “the limited recovery sought in this case,” the revised notice does attempt to explain in several places that this lawsuit seeks only statutory penalties rather than actual damages—including in § 1 (“Your Legal Rights and Options”), § 3 (“What is this Class claim about?”), § 7 (“What happens if I do nothing?”), and § 8 (“Why would I ask to be excluded?”). However, the language used throughout these sections should be further revised to more clearly warn class members about the limited recovery sought in this case and the consequences of deciding to remain in the class versus opting out (i.e., “the resulting forfeiture of the right to seek greater actual damages if the class member does not opt out” as noted in the Court’s 5/21/2026 order).
More specifically:
• In § 1 (“Your Legal Rights and Options,” under the subsection on “Do Nothing,” the revised note states:
You can stay in this lawsuit and await the outcome but you give up certain rights. If you do nothing, you will be part of the Class and consent to allow Plaintiff Heins and her counsel to make decisions on your behalf, including how the action is conducted. As a Class Member, you will keep the possibility
of getting money or benefits that may come from a trial or settlement. But you will give up any rights to sue Defendants in a separate action about the same legal claims in this lawsuit. In addition, as explained in further detail below in Sections 3, 7, and 8, this lawsuit seeks to recover statutory monetary penalties rather than actual damages pursuant to California Labor Code section 22, subdivision (e)(1) for the alleged violations during the time period of April 23, 2020 to May 21, 2026 (“Class Period”). As part of the Class, you are agreeing to pursue statutory monetary penalties instead of actual damages under California Labor Code section 22, subdivision (e)(1) for alleged wage statement violations during the Class Period.
The words “rather than” should be bolded and italicized to better warn class members of the limited recovery sought in this case.
Also, the final sentence should be revised to state: “If you do nothing and remain part of the Class, you are agreeing to pursue only statutory penalties and will forfeit your right to seek actual damages under California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (e)(1) for the alleged wage statement violations during the Class Period.”1
• In § 3 (“What is this Class claim about?”), the second paragraph states:
Under California Labor Code section 22, subdivision (e)(1), the alleged wage statement violations may entitle an employee to recover the greater of their actual damages, or statutory penalties of fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period and one hundred dollars ($100) for each subsequent pay period, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000). In this lawsuit, Plaintiff is pursuing statutory penalties on behalf of the Class for violations during the Class Period.
(Emphasis original.)
The last sentence should be revised to state: “In this lawsuit, Plaintiff is pursuing only statutory penalties on behalf of the Class for violations during the Class Period. This means that even if a Class Member’s actual damages are greater, the Class Member’s recovery is limited to recovering statutory penalties, not actual damages.”
• In § 7 (“What happens if I do nothing?”), the third paragraph states:
1 Notably, § 7 of the revised notice does use the word “forfeit” to explain the “actual damages” right that class members would be giving up: “In addition, because this lawsuit seeks statutory penalties rather than actual damages for alleged violations during the Class Period (April 23, 2020 to May 21, 2026), if you remain part of the Class, you forfeit any claim to your actual damages you may be entitled to for injuries suffered based on the alleged wage statement violations during the Class Period.” (Emphasis added.) The revision of § 1 therefore simply makes the two sections’ descriptions of class members’ rights more consistent.
In addition, because this lawsuit seeks statutory penalties rather than actual damages for alleged violations during the Class Period (April 23, 2020 to May 21, 2026), if you remain part of the Class, you forfeit any claim to your actual damages you may be entitled to for injuries suffered based on the
alleged wage statement violations during the Class Period. To the extent you may desire to seek actual damages for injuries suffered before April 23, 2020, those claims are not part of the certified claim in this lawsuit, and will not be impacted by this lawsuit.
Again, “rather than” should be bolded and italicized.
Also, the last sentence is inaccurate in that it states class members’ claims for actual damages “will not be impacted by this lawsuit.” Instead, the last sentence should be revised to read: “To the extent you may desire to seek actual damages for injuries suffered before April 23, 2020, you should exclude yourself from the Class (see Sections 8 and 9 below for more information).
• In § 8 (“Why would I ask to be excluded?”), the first two paragraphs state:
If you exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be part of the Class and will not receive any money or benefits if Plaintiff is successful in winning this case or if the Parties reach a settlement.
However, if you exclude yourself, you may be able to sue Defendants in a separate case for the claims in this lawsuit. If you exclude yourself, you may be able to sue Defendants in a separate case for your actual damages for injuries suffered based on the alleged wage statement violations during the Class Period. If you exclude yourself, you will not be legally bound by any orders or judgments the Court makes in this case. If you bring your own lawsuit against Defendants after you exclude yourself, you may hire your own lawyer for that case and pursue your own claims.
The second sentence of the second paragraph should be revised to read: “If you exclude yourself, you may be able to sue Defendants in a separate case for statutory penalties or actual damages for injuries suffered based on the alleged wage statement violations during the Class Period.”
• In the portion of the revised notice that appears to constitute a request for exclusion postcard/form, under the box for “I DO NOT WANT to participate in this class action,” the proposed language states:
I understand that by checking this box I am requesting to be excluded from the class action, I will not be eligible to share in any benefit the Class may receive. I understand that I will retain any legal rights I may have against Defendants with regard to the claims that are asserted in this lawsuit. I understand that I will not be bound by the Court’s rulings.
In the first sentence, the word “and” should be inserted between “action, I.”
In the second sentence, the following phrase should be added to the end of the sentence: “, including the right to pursue statutory penalties or actual damages for injuries suffered based on the alleged wage statement violations during the Class Period.”
• Also in the portion of the revised notice that appears to constitute a request for exclusion postcard/form, the final paragraph states:
If you fail to return this form by the deadline, you will remain a Class Member. You will be bound by the Court’s rulings in the lawsuit, including any approved settlement or judgment. You will share in any benefit the Class may receive, but you will give up the right to sue Defendants on your own for the same legal claims asserted by the class in this lawsuit. Remaining a Class Member does not guarantee that you will receive any benefit or recovery from this lawsuit.
The third sentence should be revised to add the following phrase to the end of the sentence: “, including the right to sue Defendants for any actual damages you may be entitled to for injuries suffered based on the alleged wage statement violations during the Class Period.”
3. Additionally, in § 6, the added definition of the class includes a typo: “current of former non-exempt employee” (emphasis added). The word “of” should say “or” instead.
Plaintiff’s counsel must submit a further revised class notice, including both a clean version and a redline, addressing the above-listed issues no later than 16 court days prior to the continued hearing date. To expedite the Court’s review of the further revised class notice, the parties should meet and confer before Plaintiff’s submission to the Court. If the parties are unable to resolve any differences, Defendants shall file their objections no later than 9 court days prior to the continued hearing date.
Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.