In Sierra Pacific Industries Wage and Hour Cases (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1038, the Court of Appeal held that an employer may waive its right to arbitrate through conduct inconsistent with an intent to enforce that right, even before the right becomes technically enforceable. Applying the "abandonment" standard from Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 562, the court found that by withholding arbitration agreements for years while actively litigating class discovery, the defendant abandoned its right to compel arbitration post-certification. The court further clarified that discovery sanctions issued alongside a denial of a motion to compel are generally unappealable.

This decision warns employers that strategic delays in asserting arbitration rights during the pre-certification phase of a class action can result in a permanent waiver, reinforcing that California courts will prioritize the "intent to arbitrate" over technical arguments regarding ripeness or enforceability.

In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 160 F.4th 1011, the Ninth Circuit reversed a judgment regarding wage deductions, holding that the district court erred by finding the employer's failure to update workers' compensation withholding rates was "willful" without evidence of intentional wrongdoing. The court also held that statutory penalty wages totaling nearly 400 times the actual damages were constitutionally excessive and remanded for a proportionality review. Additionally, the court reversed the decertification of a class regarding shoe deductions, ruling that deductions are only lawful if for the "ultimate benefit" of the employee; here, a jury could find the employer overcharged workers to obtain vendor rebates.

This decision significantly limits the scope of "willfulness" for administrative payroll errors while reviving strict scrutiny on employer-mandated purchase programs.

In Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 142 F.4th 678, the Ninth Circuit issued two major holdings limiting FLSA collective actions. First, it held that a court abuses its discretion by authorizing notice to employees who are indisputably subject to arbitration agreements. Second, it held that the specific personal jurisdiction requirements from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California (2017), 582 U.S. 255 do apply to FLSA collectives, meaning a district court lacks jurisdiction over claims from out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs who lack ties to the forum.

This decision severely curtails the ability of plaintiffs to bring nationwide FLSA collective actions, forcing such suits to be filed in the defendant's home state or limiting them to in-state plaintiffs.

In Allison v. Dignity Health (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 192, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decertification of a meal and rest break class, holding that "new evidence" justifying decertification is not limited to newly existing facts but can include the plaintiffs' own post-certification declarations and expert analysis. The court also affirmed that under the Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58 framework, the employer's evidence of "idiosyncratic reasons for noncompliant meal periods" was sufficient to show individual issues predominated.

This decision expands the definition of "new evidence" available to defendants at the decertification stage and reinforces the high bar plaintiffs face in proving class-wide liability for break violations.

In Reyes v. Hi-Grade Materials Co. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1089, the Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff cannot retroactively invoke the death knell doctrine to appeal a class certification denial by later voluntarily dismissing their remaining PAGA claims.

The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that jurisdiction is determined at the time of the order being appealed. Because the plaintiff's PAGA claims were still pending when class certification was denied, the death knell doctrine was inapplicable, and the plaintiff could not "manufacture" jurisdiction over a year later by dismissing the claims that had previously blocked the interlocutory appeal.

In Perez v. Rose Hills Company (9th Cir. 2025) 131 F.4th 804, the Ninth Circuit held that a defendant removing a class action under CAFA does not need to submit evidence to support its amount in controversy calculation, provided its calculation is a "reasonable interpretation" of the plaintiff's complaint. Following Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott (9th Cir. 2019) 936 F.3d 920, 925 the court clarified that a defendant may rely on "a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions" based solely on the complaint's allegations.

This decision lowers the bar for CAFA removal, shifting the district court's inquiry from whether the defendant proved the amount with evidence to whether the defendant's assumptions based on the complaint are reasonable.

In DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (9th Cir. 2024) 104 F.4th 1091, the Ninth Circuit held that American Pipe tolling continues for a putative class member unless their exclusion from a revised class definition is "unambiguous." The court reversed summary judgment for the defendant, finding that a motion by class counsel to narrow the class definition was ambiguous as to whether it excluded the plaintiff.

This decision protects bystander plaintiffs from losing their claims due to unclear class modifications.