Cortina v. North Am. Title Co.

── Cortina v. North Am. Title Co. ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/29/26 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CAROLYN CORTINA et al., F085389 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 07CECG01169) v. NORTH AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Jr., Judge. O’Melveny & Myers, David Marroso, Adam J. Karr, Anton Metlitsky, Jenya Godina; McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, Scott M. Reddie; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Barbara J. Miller and John D. Hayashi for Defendant and Appellant. Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian, Andrew B. Jones, Lawrence M. Artenian; Cornwell & Sample, Stephen R. Cornwell, René Turner Sample; Wanger Jones Helsley and Patrick D. Toole for Plaintiffs and Respondents. -ooOoo- In Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1 (Duran), Justice Carol Corrigan used the phrase “exceedingly rare beast” to describe “a wage and hour class * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part III of the Discussion. action that proceeded through trial to verdict.” (Id. at p. 12.) The plaintiffs in Duran had alleged their employer misclassified them as exempt from the laws requiring premium pay for overtime and mandatory meal breaks and rest periods during the workday. Such lawsuits are notoriously difficult to manage on a large scale, are often deemed unsuitable for class treatment, and usually settle if class certification is granted. The Duran action, which involved a class of 260 people, lasted more than 16 years and ultimately ended in decertification due to the unmanageability of issues arising from the employer’s defenses. We dare say the present case is even rarer and more beastly than Duran. The original complaint was filed 19 years ago. There have been numerous interlocutory appeals and writ proceedings, the most recent of which involved review by the California Supreme Court. (North American Title Co. v. Superior Court (2024) 17 Cal.5th 155.) At long last, an appeal of the underlying judgment is presented for review on the merits. Unfortunately, the end is still nowhere in sight. The wage and hour claims of approximately 700 plaintiffs, divided into two classes based on whether they had been designated as exempt or nonexempt employees, were litigated in a bifurcated bench trial. Upon conclusion of the first phase, the “Nonexempt” class was ordered decertified. However, the trial court ruled against the defendant employer on certain defenses asserted as to the claims of the “Exempt” class. The court then appointed a referee to conduct the second phase of trial, doing so without the parties’ consent and over defendant’s strenuous objections. The reference proceedings lasted years and included live testimony from over 230 class members, all leading to the entry of a $43 million judgment. A nonconsensual reference of the scope and magnitude ordered in this case is not merely a rare occurrence. It appears unprecedented in our state jurisprudence. A trial court’s authority to delegate matters to a referee without the parties’ consent is strictly circumscribed by the California Constitution and Code of Civil Procedure. The reference 2. proceedings below were entirely unauthorized. This error alone compels reversal of the judgment. Prejudicial errors were also committed in the first phase of trial, which became known as the “liability phase” even though it did not truly resolve a