Salon v. New Answernet CA1/5

Filed 2/7/25 Salon v. New Answernet CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

AURELIO P. SALON III, Plaintiff and Appellant, A166627 v. NEW ANSWERNET, INC., et al., (Sonoma County Defendants and Respondents. Super. Ct. No. SCV265731)

Aurelio Salon III appeals from an order denying certification of a class of approximately 470 employees of New Answernet, Inc., and Energy Choice California, Inc. (collectively defendants), based on allegations defendants failed to provide their employees with proper meal periods. We dismiss Salon’s appeal on the basis it is taken from a nonappealable order. BACKGROUND Salon worked for defendants as a call center representative from September 2017 to February 2018. During that time, he claims defendants failed to provide their employees with meal and rest periods, among other things. In April 2019, Salon filed an action against defendants, alleging class claims for failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly and overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition.

1

Salon also sought civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) relative to each of the alleged Labor Code violations on behalf of himself and other current and former aggrieved employees. In June 2022, Salon filed a motion for class certification. In the motion, he stated the claim for PAGA penalties “need not be certified and will be pursued regardless of whether a class is certified.” The trial court denied the motion for class certification in its entirety on the basis Salon’s claims were not conducive to class treatment. The court found that Salon failed to provide sufficient evidence of a plan or practice by defendants that resulted in the alleged wage and hour violations; thus, individualized inquiries would predominate. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Salon challenges the portion of the denial of certification order relating to his claim for missed meal periods. Relative to this challenge, the parties dispute whether the trial court erred in denying certification of the missed meal period claim. As a preliminary matter, the parties also dispute whether the order is appealable based on the death knell doctrine. We need not reach the merits of the denial of certification order because we conclude the order is not appealable. Under the one final judgment rule, an appeal in California may generally be taken “ ‘ “only from the final judgment in an entire action.” ’ ” (In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 756.) An exception to the rule exists for interlocutory orders denying class certification when such orders have the effect of ringing the “ ‘death knell’ ” for the claims of absent class members. (Id. at p. 757.) In order for the death knell doctrine to apply, there must be an order that “(1) amounts to a de facto final judgment for