whether ‘questions of law or fact common to class members predominate’ begins, of course, with the elements of the underlying cause of action.”). We have concluded that the “nature of the work” defense can, and will, be applied on a class-wide basis in this case. We offer no opinion on whether USSA’s “single-guard” staffing model will qualify for the “nature of the work” exception. But “Rule 23(b)(3) requires [only] a showing that questions common to the class predominate, not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.” Amgen Inc., 133 S.Ct. at 1191 (emphasis removed); see also United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. ConocoPhillips Co., 593 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). And where, as here, “there are no relevant
holding that the district court abused its discretion by declining certification based on the possibility that plaintiffs would not prevail on the merits on their on duty theory where the plaintiffs theory was that certain restrictions on their meal breaks made the meals on duty under california law emphasis removed holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to award attorneys fees based on the objective unreasonableness of plaintiffs complaint holding that a dismissal on limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits holding that plaintiffs are ordinarily entitled to instructions consonant with their theory of the case where evidentiary support for the theory exists