The plaintiffs apparently sought a rehearing. The Court issued an amended opinion instead. The Court softened some of its language in the first opinion. For example, it removed this line, quoted from its own precedent, addressing the plaintiffs' burden of proof on a motion for class certification:
Plaintiffs must show “significant proof that [CDN] operated under a general policy of [violating California labor laws].” Ellis, 657 F.3d at 983 (quoting Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2553 (alteration omitted)).
The Court in the first opinion foreclosed class certification for injunctive relief Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b)(2)
Further, it appears that none of the named plaintiffs has standing to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of the class, as none of them is a current CDN employee. See Wang, 623 F.3d at 756. We therefore reverse the district court’s class certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
In the new opinion, the Court opened the door to injunctive relief:
It appears that none of the named plaintiffs has standing to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of the class, as none of them is a current CDN employee. See Wang, 623 F.3d at 756. However, because the Rule 23(b)(2) class was certified by the district court while they were current employees, the class certification with respect to injunctive relief may survive if there are identifiable class members who are still employed by CDN.
The Court's new opinion also deletes the section of the prior opinion called "Damages." In the first opinion the Court wrote this, which could have been helpful to defense lawyers in class action cases:
in Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court disapproved what it called “Trial by Formula,” wherein damages are determined for a sample set of class members and then applied by extrapolation to the rest of the class “without further individualized proceedings.” Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2561. Employers are “entitled to individualized determinations of each employee’s eligibility” for monetary relief. Id. at 2560. Employers are also entitled to litigate any individual affirmative defenses they may have to class members’ claims. Id. at 2561.Poof. That language is gone from the amended opinion. The Court mentions in the new opinion that it expresses no opinion regarding damages.
The case is Wang v. Chinese Daily News and the amended opinion is here.