Nguyen v. Dollar Financial Group
Filed 5/18/06 Nguyen v. Dollar Financial Group CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
LOC NGUYEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DOLLAR FINANCIAL GROUP, Defendant and Respondent. | B184137 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC295343) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William F. Fahey, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Ellen Lake and Ellen Lake; Righetti Law Firm, formerly Righetti Wynne, Matthew Righetti, and John Glugoski for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Michael A. Hood, and James P. Carter for Defendant and Respondent.
I. introduction
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for class certification, which was originally brought by Stanley Chin against defendant, Dollar Financial Group, for alleged violations of mandatory meal and rest breaks which are governed by Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512. The trial court concluded Mr. Chin was inadequate to represent the proposed class due to the fact that he had been a manager for defendant and had settled his individual claims. After the notice of appeal was filed, the trial court accepted a stipulation by the parties to amend the complaint to substitute Loc Nguyen as the named plaintiff and class representative in place of Mr. Chin. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387; La Sala v. American Savings & Loan Assn. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864, 872.) We have judicially noticed the stipulation and replaced Mr. Chin with Mr. Nguyen, as the plaintiff. (Mallick v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 434, 437; see also Lazar v. Hertz Corp., (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 128, 142.) We affirm the order denying class certification on the ground the trial court could properly rule the action was not suitable for class treatment because the common questions of law and fact did not predominate over individualized issues.
II. background
A. The Labor Code and Wage Orders
Labor Code section 226.7 provides: â€
