Trial Court Erred In Denying Motion For Class Certification.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Home Service on behalf of customer service managers who were not reimbursed for expenses pertaining to the work-related use of their personal cell phones. He alleged causes of action for violation of Labor Code section 2802; unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; declaratory relief; and statutory penalties under Labor Code section 2699, the Private Attorneys-General Act of 2004. The trial court denied the motion to certify the class due to lack of commonality, and because a class action was not a superior method of litigating the claims. The appellate court reversed, stating;  “We hold that when employees must use their personal cell phones for work-related calls, Labor Code section 2802 requires the employer to reimburse them” and remanding for the superior court to reconsider the motion for class certification. (Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 2; August 12, 2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1137, [176 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].)