The aftershocks continue to reverberate from the earthquake that was the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). But in California, Dukes seemed a harder sell. California law typically favors class actions. Most academics revere them, and plaintiffs’ lawyers get all dewy-eyed and liken class actions to a “right”—a rung below voting but still a notch or two above, say, paying taxes.

That just serves to amplify the seismic effect from the decision handed down this week by a California appellate court in Duran v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. A125557, 2012 WL 2012 WL 366590 (Feb. 6, 2012). Duran, like Dukes, was an employment class action. However, this was a wage and hour “misclassification” case—which, for a time, was California’s fastest-growing indoor sport. In a case of first impression, the First Appellate District (based in San Francisco) gave an emphatic “heave ho” to plaintiffs’ attempt to use statistical sampling to prove classwide liability and damages. By allowing that, the trial court committed a rare “twofer”: one error on the merits and another on class certification.

Please see full alert below for more information.