Beginning on Oct. 10, 2004, plaintiffs Donald Bryan, Charles Ridgeway and several other truck drivers employed by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. noticed that Wal-Mart was allegedly failing to pay its drivers for all the required job duties that they performed. They also alleged that they were not paid for layover breaks, during which Wal-Mart exercised control over them. In 2008, several truck drivers filed a class action suit against their employer Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which was doing business as Wal-Mart Transportation LLC; and a Wal-Mart supervisor, Jeffrey Hammond. The class, representing approximately 839 past and current Wal-Mart truck drivers, alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted violations of California Labor Code § 1194 (failure to pay minimum wage); California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. (Unfair Competition Law); California Labor Code § 1194.2 (liquidated damages for failure to pay minimum wage); and California Labor Code § 1197.1 (penalty for failure to pay minimum wage). The initial suit was filed by class representatives in Alameda County Superior Court, but the matter was removed by Wal-Mart to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Thereafter, on Sept. 10, 2014, District Court Judge Susan Illston certified a class based on the plaintiffs’ minimum wage claim, consisting of all persons employed by Wal-Mart in California in the position of private fleet driver at any time between Oct. 10, 2004 and the date of trial. Subsequently, the class period was shortened to end on Oct. 15, 2015. In addition, during the course of the litigation, plaintiffs Donald Bryan, Virgil Caldwell, Carroll Hampton, Robert Rodriguez, Richard Brown and Michael Krohn were removed as class representatives, and the Wal-Mart Supervisor, Hammond, was dismissed as a defendant. The class’ counsel argued that Wal-Mart failed to pay for all of its drivers’ required job duties. Counsel contended that Wal-Mart’s payment policies, which compensated drivers using a combination of mileage pay, hourly pay and payment of set amounts for certain tasks, provided no payment at all for various duties, including performance of pre- and post-trip inspections, fueling, washing the trucks, and undergoing mandatory roadside inspections, among others. Counsel also argued that although Wal-Mart permitted its drivers to take rest breaks, the company provided no means by which drivers could be paid during such breaks, as required by California law. Counsel contended that during the 10-hour layover breaks, as required by the Department of Transportation between work days, Wal-Mart exercised control over the drivers by requiring them to sleep in their trucks unless prior permission to leave was granted. As a result, the class’ counsel argued that the drivers were entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage for each such 10-hour break. In addition, the class’ counsel argued that Wal-Mart’s pay policies and practices violated the California Unfair Competition Law, entitling class members to restitution of all unpaid wages and benefits Wal-Mart gained from such practices. Defense counsel denied the claims that Wal-Mart’s practices violated the Labor Code and disputed plaintiffs’ counsel’s interpretation of the Labor Code and applicable case law. Counsel also contended that the payment given to Wal-Mart’s drivers for certain duties was intended to also pay for the allegedly unpaid duties. In 2015, Illston granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Wal-Mart’s pay policies, as written, violated California’s minimum wage laws by failing to provide payment for all of the required job duties and by subjecting drivers to Wal-Mart’s control during the mandatory 10-hour layovers. She also determined that Wal-Mart’s adoption of those policies constituted an unfair business practice under the California Unfair Competition Law. Thus, after the partial-summary-judgment rulings, the primary issues reserved for trial were whether Wal-Mart, in fact, used the pay plans described in its pay manuals to determine the wages of its drivers, and if so, what was the amount of wages, calculated at minimum wage, owed to the drivers for any uncompensated work., The case went to trial on behalf of approximately 839 past and current drivers who were/are employed at Wal-Mart Distribution Centers located in Red Bluff, Porterville and Apple Valley. Approximately 200 of those drivers reside in California’s Central Valley. The class sought recovery of wages calculated at minimum wage (in regard to the Labor Code claims), as well as restitution of unpaid wages and other benefits (in regard to the Unfair Competition Law claim) for the period between Oct. 10, 2004 and Oct. 15, 2015. The class also sought penalties for Wal-Mart’s alleged failure to pay minimum wage under Labor Code § 1197.1 and liquidated damages under Labor Code § 1194.2.