Smith v. Superior Court CA2/3

── Smith v. Superior Court CA2/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 Smith v. Superior Court CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE CANDICE SMITH et al., B349974 Petitioners, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC639197) v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF LOS ANGELES et al., Real Parties in Interest.  ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate, William F. Highberger, Judge. Petition granted in part and denied in part. Capstone Law, Ryan H. Wu, Melissa Grant, Bevin Allen Pike for Petitioners. David Lee, Court Counsel, for Respondent. Wolflick, Khachaturian & Bouayad, Gregory D. Wolflick and Theodore S. Khachaturian for Real Party in Interest Volunteers of America of Los Angeles. ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗ In 2016, plaintiffs and petitioners Candice Smith and Elizabeth Grundy filed a class action against their former employer, defendant and real party in interest Volunteers of America of Los Angeles (VOALA), asserting meal and rest period violations and other wage-and-hour claims. Plaintiffs sought certification of five subclasses. The trial court certified two subclasses after limiting their scope and denied certification of the three remaining subclasses, all of which related to meal period violations. The trial court concluded the meal period subclasses lacked commonality because VOALA’s affirmative defense of waiver would require individualized proof. Plaintiffs seek a preemptive writ of mandate. They contend the trial court’s ruling was inconsistent with Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58 (Donohue). Plaintiffs also assert that the trial court erred in limiting the scope of one of the subclasses. We grant plaintiffs’ petition in part. We agree that the trial court made an erroneous legal assumption in determining that the mere pleading of waiver as an affirmative defense was 2 sufficient to show individual issues would predominate as to the meal period subclasses. We deny plaintiffs’ petition with respect to the Children’s Services Subclass, as substantial evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that certification was proper only as to the locations where the class representatives worked. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND VOALA VOALA “provides services to homeless individuals, veterans, and young adults.” Through its Children’s Services division, VOALA also runs Head Start preschool programs and provides other services to families. From 2012 to 2023, VOALA employed over 5,800 hourly workers in California. Before new employees report to their specific program sites, VOALA’s human resources department informs them about the company’s policies in the employee handbook, including meal and rest break policies. At all times relevant to these proceedings, the handbook instructed hourly employees to “take an unpaid, 30-minute” off-duty meal period for every shift “of more than five hours.” Payroll associate Terry Ng, designated one of VOALA’s persons most qualified, testified that VOALA paid a premium if an employee “clocked out late after six hours for lunch, and if they missed a lunch, and if the meal break is less than 29 minutes.” Until 2015, hourly employees at VOALA recorded their hours by writing their clock-in and