{"id":3259,"date":"2026-09-23T08:06:38","date_gmt":"2026-09-23T12:06:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3259"},"modified":"2026-09-23T08:06:39","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T12:06:39","slug":"farm-a-versus-farm-b-california-federal-court-rejects-class-certification-where-meal-period-claims-require-individualized-inquiries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/09\/23\/farm-a-versus-farm-b-california-federal-court-rejects-class-certification-where-meal-period-claims-require-individualized-inquiries\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cFarm A Versus Farm B\u201d: California Federal Court Rejects Class Certification Where Meal Period Claims Require Individualized Inquiries"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr, Daniel D. Spencer, Jamar D. Davis, and Kenny T. Tran<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/em><\/strong>: On September 18, 2026, in Sara Reyes v. Grow Smart Labor, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00028, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213967 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2026), Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied <\/a>class certification in a California wage-and-hour action after concluding that, although Plaintiff could identify a common question concerning whether the Donohue meal period presumption arose from Defendant\u2019s timekeeping data, the rebuttal of that presumption would require extensive individualized farm-by-farm, crew-by-crew and day-by-day inquiries, demonstrating that individualized inquiries dominated over common questions.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case arose from Plaintiff Sara Reyes\u2019 employment with Defendant Grow Smart Labor, a farm labor contractor that supplies agricultural workers to third-party farms. Id.<\/em> at *1. Grow Smart\u2019s workforce was anything but uniform: employees were assigned to different crops, locations, supervisors, and jobs; some were paid hourly while others were paid on a piece-rate basis; and the company used different timekeeping systems, including crew timecards and individual timecards. Id. <\/em>at *8. Grow Smart presented evidence that its operations and timekeeping practices varied substantially by assignment, such that \u201cfarm-by-farm\u201d or \u201ccrew-by-crew\u201d investigation regarding meal breaks would ensue. Id<\/em>. at *8-9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Reasoning<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The meal period analysis was the centerpiece of the decision. The District Court recognized that under Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC<\/em>, 11 Cal. 5th 58 (2021), time records showing missed, short, or delayed meal periods without corresponding compensation can create a rebuttable presumption that the employer violated California law. Id. <\/em>at *4. But the Court emphasized that the Donohue<\/em> presumption does not eliminate the separate requirements imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Id. <\/em>at *6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reyes\u2019 expert provided class-wide evidence by analyzing Grow Smart\u2019s timekeeping data, finding that almost none of Grow Smart\u2019s records included entries that showed when employee meal breaks began or ended. Id.<\/em> at *7. Grow Smart did not challenge the expert\u2019s experience or qualifications, nor did it offer any contrary analysis of its own data or any rebuttal expert opinions. Id. <\/em>at *7-8.The District Court concluded that Reyes had demonstrated a common question of law and fact concerning whether the class\u2019s timekeeping data could trigger the Donohue<\/em> presumption. Id. <\/em>at *8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Grow Smart successfully argued, to which the magistrate judge agreed to and found, that Reyes had not demonstrated that common questions are likely to predominate the rebuttal portion of the case: the degree of individualized inquiries needed to assess meal period compliance across all of Grow Smart\u2019s California operations. Id. <\/em>Grow Smart employees worked at different farms under different supervisors, some worked in crews while others had individualized timekeeping, and records varied from assignment to assignment. Id. <\/em>Most importantly, Grow Smart presented evidence that whether meal periods were required to be recorded could depend on whether operations \u201cceased\u201d during the relevant meal period. Id. <\/em>at *8-9.The Court therefore anticipated that a class trial would devolve into \u201ca long series of back-and-forth debates\u201d concerning \u201cwhat happened on Farm A versus Farm B or under the leadership of Supervisor 1 versus Supervisor 2.\u201d Id. <\/em>at *9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The individualized nature of those inquiries also affected Reyes\u2019 proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2). The Magistrate Judge found that a class action cannot be certified under 23(b)(2) when \u201ceach class member would be entitled to an individual award of monetary damages\u201d and \u201ca different injunction or declaratory judgment\u201d, which Reyes did not object to.  Id. <\/em>at *9-10. Since Reyes no longer worked for Grow Smart or cited any plans to return, she had not demonstrated that she could pursue prospective relief on behalf of a class of current employees, which is a prerequisite to seek such relief on behalf of a class of current employees. Id. <\/em>at *10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Takeaways and Implications for Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For employers defending wage-and-hour class actions, Reyes<\/em> underscores an important distinction between identifying a statistical pattern and proving a class-wide violation. A plaintiff may be able to point to a common data anomaly, such as missing meal punches or apparent deductions, but the defense can still defeat certification by demonstrating that the meaning of those records depends on operational context. Here, the significance of a missing punch could not be evaluated in a vacuum because the company\u2019s vast agricultural operations used different recordkeeping practices, including crew-level records that did not necessarily apply uniformly across business functions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision also highlights the value of developing a factual record demonstrating operational variation before the certification stage. Employers should preserve and present evidence concerning different worksites, supervisors, scheduling practices, timekeeping systems, compensation methods, written policies, policy changes, and the actual practices followed in the field. Reyes<\/em> shows how those facts can transform an apparently simple \u201cmissing meal punch\u201d case into a series of individualized factual inquiries that plaintiffs cannot readily resolve through a single database or expert model. The result is a defense-friendly application of Rule 23\u2019s predominance requirement: common data may establish a common issue, but it does not necessarily establish a common answer to the ultimate liability question.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr, Daniel D. Spencer, Jamar D. Davis, and Kenny T. Tran Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 18, 2026, in Sara Reyes v. Grow Smart Labor, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00028, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213967 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2026), Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “\u201cFarm A Versus Farm B\u201d: California Federal Court Rejects Class Certification Where Meal Period Claims Require Individualized Inquiries”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,155,161,153],"class_list":["post-3259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-wage-hour-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":155,"user_id":755,"is_guest":0,"slug":"dspencer","display_name":"Daniel Spencer","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/02\/spencerdaniel-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Spencer","first_name":"Daniel","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/danielspencer.html","description":"Read Daniel's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":161,"user_id":767,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jddavis","display_name":"Jamar D. Davis","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/04\/davisjamar-100x100.jpg","author_category":"1","last_name":"Davis","first_name":"Jamar D.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/jamardavis.html","description":"Read Jamar's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":153,"user_id":752,"is_guest":0,"slug":"ktran","display_name":"Kenny Tran","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/trankenny-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Tran","first_name":"Kenny","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/kennytran.html","description":"Read Kenny's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3259","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3259"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3259\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3266,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3259\/revisions\/3266"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3259"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}