Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Play Ball! California Federal Court Reconsiders Order Denying Minor League Baseball Players’ Motion For Class Certification

March 24, 2017 by Clifton R. Gruhn and Jordan Ziegler

The Northern District of California recently renewed hope in a minor league baseball player class action wage dispute by granting the plaintiffs class certification after they narrowed the class. The court had previously denied class certification in July 2016, finding that the experiences of the class members varied too widely to satisfy Rule 23. The original class certification motion sought to certify “classes consisting of ‘[a]ll persons who under a Minor League Uniform Player contract, work or worked for MLB or any MLB franchise as a minor league baseball player within the relevant state at any time,” and “asserted wage and hour claims under the laws of eight different states based on a variety of activities the putative class members perform throughout the year.” Of particular concern for the putative class were “problems associated with determining membership in the State Classes based on [the baseball players’] winter training,” which was highly individualized. The court found that, given the variety of activities in which the minor leaguers engaged, they could not satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3), 23(b)(2), or the ascertainability requirement of Rule 23(a). In August, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”), which the court granted, instructing the plaintiffs to “propose narrower classes.”

In their Motion, the plaintiffs proposed Florida, Arizona, and California classes and eliminated the issues associated with winter training by opting not to seek certification as to those claims. Despite the defendants’ argument to the contrary, the court found that the claims of the new Rule 23(b)(3) classes could be proved using representative evidence, rather than common evidence, obtained from an employment survey used to estimate the hours worked by the baseball players. The court explained that “by dropping these [winter training] claims, [plaintiffs] significantly reduced the variations that led the Court to [previously] conclude that [p]laintiffs were attempting to stretch the holding of Tyson Foods too far.”

The court also found that all three classes met the requirements of Rule 23(a), but determined that “the adequacy requirement [was] not met as to the Arizona and Florida classes.” While the plaintiffs asked the court to apply the law of the particular state for each class, the defendants argued that this would force some absent members to forfeit their right to recover damages under the laws of other states. The court found that the plaintiff’s approach would work for the California class because “California has a strong interest in applying its wage and hour laws to work performed in California even if it is performed by non-residents.” However, the court determined that “there is a danger that choice of law questions will overwhelm the common issues raised by the Arizona and Florida classes,” and that the predominance requirement was therefore defeated as to those subclasses because “[p]laintiffs have not met their burden of showing that the claims of all of the Florida and Arizona Class members are governed by the laws of those two states.”

Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., No. 14-00608 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2017)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Two Second Circuit Cases, Two Applications of Campbell-Ewald, Two Different Results, Three Weeks Apart

Next Article »

No Pick-Off, No Problem: How a Pre-Certification Rule 68 Offer Survived (Twice)
Clifton R. Gruhn

About Clifton R. Gruhn

Clifton Gruhn is a Shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida.

Avatar

About Jordan Ziegler

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.