The plaintiffs in this case sought to represent a class of home loan consultants who claimed they were improperly classified as exempt employees. Three months before the discovery cut-off, the employer filed a motion to deny class certification, on the basis that determination of the applicability of the white collar exemptions would require individual? assessments? that? would? predominate over class issues.?? The District Court granted the defendant?s motion.?? The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court ruled that nothing in Rule 23 prevented a? defendant? from? moving? to? deny? class certification.? ?The appeals court held that the plaintiffs?? had?? had?? nine?? months? ?to?? conduct discovery on the issues, which was adequate. ?The circuit agreed that individual issues predominated, because the plaintiffs had unfettered autonomy on how to do their jobs.
Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., 571 F.3d 935 (9th? Cir. July 7, 2009) (Callahan, Silverman, and Mills (C.D. Ill.)).