Banta v. American Medical Response CA2/2

Filed 2/22/16 Banta v. American Medical Response CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

VAUGHN BANTA, B255239

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC393113) v.

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., et al.

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elihu Berle, Judge. Dismissed.

Van Vleck Turner & Zaller, Brian F. Van Vleck for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Epstein Becker & Green, Michael S. Kun for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

Plaintiff purports to appeal from the trial court’s refusal to certify a class as to some—but not all—of his claims. We dismiss for lack of a final, appealable judgment. FACTS Vaughn Banta initiated a putative class action lawsuit against American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR) and related entities in 2008. The operative pleading alleges that Banta, who is employed by AMR as a paramedic, failed to receive overtime pay, meal breaks, rest breaks, and itemized wage statements, in violation of the Labor Code. This is allegedly a company policy affecting some 11,000 employees. Banta sought class certification, identifying the class members as emergency medical technicians and paramedics in Southern California. AMR opposed certification on the grounds that Banta failed to establish his adequacy as class representative or a “community of interest” on his claims. At a hearing on February 25, 2014, the trial court granted class certification on AMR’s alleged failure to pay overtime, and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the notice that must be given to class members. The court denied class certification as to the meal and rest break claims, finding insufficient evidence to demonstrate a common issue, or that the matter would not require individualized inquiry. DISCUSSION The “one final judgment” rule prohibits review of intermediate ruling until a final resolution of the case, because allowing multiple appeals in a single action is oppressive and costly. (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 697.) The rule “reduces the ability of litigants to harass opponents and to clog the courts through a succession of costly and time-consuming appeals.” (Flanagan v. United States (1984) 465 U.S. 259, 264.) In the context of class actions, an exception “renders appealable only those orders that effectively terminate class claims but permit individual claims to continue.” (In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 754 (Baycol).) This is the “death knell” doctrine. (Ibid.) The justification for the death knell doctrine is that (1) the order is “the practical equivalent of a final judgment for some parties” that “‘virtually demolishe[s] the