The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this overtime pay case, finding plaintiff had not shown that common issues predominated.  Though there was a common question about whether defendant violated California labor law in calculating the amount of overtime pay (because in computing base pay it divided the flat bonus for weekend worked by total hours worked, rather than just non-overtime hours worked, as Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California (2018) 4 Cal.4th 542 requires), that question did not predominate because many of the employees in the proposed class did not work overtime or did not get the fixed bonus or were overcompensated for some hours during the same pay period, netting out the undercompensation for overtime hours.  As these individual questions affected the employer’s liability for any unpaid overtime wage, not just the amount of a class member’s damages, they barred class certification.  Also, unlike the plaintiff in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo (2016) 136 S.Ct. 1036, plaintiff here offered no statistical or sampling evidence to show how these individual questions could be resolved through common proof.