![Ali v. U.S.A. Cab Ltd.](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Ali v. U.S.A. Cab Ltd.](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Ali v. U.S.A. Cab Ltd.
98 CAL.RPTR.3D 568, 176 CAL.APP.4TH 1333, 09 CAL. DAILY OP. SERV. 10,902, 09 CAL. DAILY OP. SERV. 12,622, 2009.CA.0006393
-
- 0,99 €
-
- 0,99 €
Descrição da editora
Abdulahi Ali and Dimitar Hristov (plaintiffs), who formerly leased taxis from USA Cab Ltd., brought a putative class action against it and its principals, Alfredo Hueso and Jose Antonio Hueso (collectively USA Cab), alleging USA Cabs leases wrongfully classified lessees as independent contractors rather than employees, and USA Cab violated the law by not providing lessees with workers compensation insurance, not paying them minimum wages, requiring them to pay security deposits and other fees, and denying them meal and rest breaks, or alternatively, paying them premium pay. Plaintiffs contend the trial court improperly denied their motion for certification of a class. They assert the court impermissibly weighed the merits of the lawsuit, applied improper legal criteria and made erroneous legal assumptions, and made unsupported findings about the lack of predominance of common questions of law and superiority of class treatment. "Our task on appeal is not to determine in the first instance whether the requested class is appropriate but rather whether the trial court has abused its discretion in denying certification." (Osborne v. Subaru of America, Inc. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 646, 654.) We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the order.