LOS ANGELES — A U.S. district court has granted class certification in a civil lawsuit filed against Vixen Media Group (VMG) by retired performer Kenzie Anne, making it possible for additional performers to join in a class action against the company.
The lawsuit, first filed in April 2023, originally included multiple causes of action, nearly all of which were dismissed in August 2023 by Judge Wesley L. Hsu of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The remaining cause of action involves alleged violations of California’s labor code, specifically Section 203, which imposes penalties for failure to pay wages after an employment relationship ends.
Anne, who had a working relationship with VMG from November 2020 through September 2022, alleges that the company failed to pay such waiting time penalties. Her complaint argues that VMG violated Section 203 by “misclassifying Class Members as independent contractors to avoid paying wages for hours that Class Members worked on off-set/pre-shoot preparation work” and by failing to pay class members in a timely fashion.
The performance agreements between Anne and VMG state that she was “an independent contractor” and not “deemed an employee” of VMG. However, Anne’s legal complaint cites some of the requirements in those agreements — including those relating to grooming, personal appearance and health tests — to support her contention that the “contractor” classification is inaccurate.
The newly certified class in the case includes performers and models who worked for VMG under a model release and grant of rights agreement, a performance agreement and/or a loan-out agreement, whom VMG classified as independent contractors in California at any time between April 20, 2020, and April 24, 2026.
The court appointed the law firm of Bibiyan Law Group, P.C. as class counsel and set June 20 as the date for mediation. Impacted class members can decide to allow the case to determine their claims or may opt out of the class.
Bibyan attorney Sarah Cohen told XBIZ that the firm believes the ruling was fair and well-reasoned.
"We look forward to advancing this now-certified class action through trial," Cohen said. "We plan to attend the court-ordered June 20, 2026 mediation in good faith to resolve the matter on a class and representative basis in a fashion that fairly compensates class members. We are also prepared for the matter not to resolve at mediation and thus are simultaneously preparing for trial."
Speaking on behalf of VMG, industry attorney Corey Silverstein told XBIZ that it would be premature for the plaintiffs to celebrate, as class certification is not a ruling on the merits but simply a procedural step in the litigation process.
“It is certainly not a final judgment,” Silverstein said. “Courts routinely certify classes to allow claims to be litigated efficiently, but that decision does not establish liability or validate the underlying allegations. Especially here, where the court found the plaintiff exempt as a professional actor.”
Certification decisions, Silverstein noted, are inherently provisional, and can be challenged and overturned as a case develops.
“Any suggestion that certification reflects a win on the substance of the case is misleading,” Silverstein said. “The defendants will continue to vigorously contest these claims and still have the opportunity to move for summary judgment, which could result in the plaintiff's claims being dismissed entirely.”
Industry attorney Lawrence Walters likewise noted that the certification order does not decide the merits of the claim, only whether the case may proceed as a class action.
"The plaintiff class members will still need to prove their claims alleging failure to pay wages for pre-shoot preparation work at trial," Walters told XBIZ. "This is a fact-intensive determination that will ultimately be decided by a jury if the case does not settle."
The ruling lists the underlying legal issues as “(1) whether the putative class members were improperly classified as independent contractors in violation of California law; (2) whether pre-shoot preparation work is compensable labor time; (3) whether the putative class members received untimely wage payments; and (4) whether Defendants’ failure to pay wages due was willful.”
Still, Walters told XBIZ, the decision is potentially significant as it could clear the path for other similar claims against different industry studios or producers.
“The risk of a misclassification claim is heightened in California, which uses a comparatively forgiving test to determine whether a worker is an employee,” Walters said. “Producers in California, and other states with similar employment laws, should be aware of these potential claims and adopt business practices designed to address the risks.”
