Can Valley bring a motion against the named plaintiffs in a class action alleging that they were not paid the appropriate prevailing wage?

Valley contends the named plaintiffs' "conclusory statements that they were not paid the appropriate prevailing wage were admitted into evidence over [Valley]'s objections, including: misstating deposition testimony, lacking sufficient knowledge and foundation to make such conclusions, and being improper lay opinion. [Citations.] It was prejudicial error to admit such evidence." "We need not consider an argument so poorly articulated." (Craddock v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1300, 1307.) "To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, 'it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.' [Citations.] Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail." (In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.) Valley cites to its objections to the named plaintiffs declarations and the trial court's order overruling these objections, but not to any support in the record for the assertion that the declarations misstate deposition testimony. Likewise, Valley's argument that the challenged statements lack foundation fails for lack of citation to authority. As to the complaint that the named plaintiffs lacked personal knowledge whether they were paid the prevailing wage or that this constituted improper lay opinion, we note that the named plaintiffs also declared to the hourly pay they receiveda matter which appears to be within their personal knowledge. Regardless, where substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusions, the fact there are boilerplate allegations in the plaintiffs' declarations are not sufficient to reverse class certification. (See Sav-on

Page 15