Judge Robert L. Hess has certified one issue on behalf of five class-action plaintiffs in the California employment-related lawsuit against Crown Equipment Corp.

The certification relates to the issue of whether to compensate technicians for driving to a new customer location during an unpaid one-hour lunch break.

Attorneys representing the field service technicians filed the suit, seeking class-action status and a jury trial, on 10 June 2010 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

As filed for a period beginning in 2006, the plaintiffs' lawsuit in five causes of action claims that Crown violated California Labor Code employment laws and regulations in failing to provide meal and rest periods, pay overtime wages, furnish accurate wage and hour statements and pay all wages earned.

"The judge may set a trial date for mid- to late-2013," says Jean-Paul Le Clercq, an attorney representing the plaintiffs and planning soon to distribute a detailed notice explaining the judge's action. Le Clercq is with the Los Angeles law firm of Makarem & Associates APLC.

Le Clercq says in an interview the evidence "supports our positions", although the Crown legal team disagrees.

Crown's general counsel provides the New Bremen, Ohio-based company's perspective to Forkliftaction.com News:

"All but one of the substantive allegations made by the plaintiffs were rejected at the class certification stage. The court granted class certification as to only one issue regarding technicians who drive to a new customer location during an unpaid lunch hour and whether such drive time may be compensable. The additional claims that remain are not stand alone but part of the case only to the extent that they may be related to the one issue certified by the court. A further discovery phase as to the merits of the remaining allegations will now begin. Crown's position remains that its compensation of field service technicians has complied with the law, and the court has made no ruling to the contrary."

Beth A Gunn with the Los Angeles firm of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC represents Crown on this case.

At a June hearing, the judge heard arguments about the plaintiffs' request for the class-action status. His September ruling partially granted and partially denied that request.

The plaintiffs ask for unspecified damages, wage restitution, prejudgment interest and reimbursement of legal fees.

Although the judge may set a date for a jury to consider the case, Le Clercq expects the matter would be resolved prior to the start of any trial, possibly through mediation. "We have not seen any class-action (cases) go to trial in California," he says. In the past, after the certification phase, the litigating parties often have come to a resolution of their differences.