Catalina Ricaldai v. US Investigations Services, LLC et al

Filing 63

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson,the court continues Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to February 13, 2012 at 10:00a.m. 48 The court also modifies the class certification briefing schedule as follows: the last day to file a motion rega rding class certification is February 28, 2012; the opposition must be filed by April 5, 2012; and the reply is due by May 3, 2012. Finally, the parties are directed to inform the court immediately, if the California Supreme Court issues a decision in its review of Brinker before February 6, 2011. (lc) Modified on 10/25/2011 (lc). Modified on 10/25/2011 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CATALINA RICALDAI, on behalf
of herself and all others
similarly situated,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
US INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES,
LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,
Defendant.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 10-07388 DDP (PLAx)
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MODIFYING
CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
[Docket No. 48]

18
19

Defendant US Investigations Services has filed a Motion for

20

Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion”).

21

scheduled for hearing on Monday, October 24, 2011.

22

discussed below, the court, on its own motion, continues the

23

hearing to Monday, February 13, 2012.

24

class certification briefing schedule accordingly.

25

directed to inform the court immediately, however, if the

26

California Supreme Court issues a decision in its review of Brinker

27

Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct., 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 781 (2008), and related

28

cases prior to February 6, 2011.

The Motion is currently
For the reasons

The court also modifies the
The parties are

1

I.

2

BACKGROUND
Defendant has moved for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s

3

claim for failure to provide meal periods, and a number of other

4

allegedly derivative claims.

5

violate California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512, because it

6

always afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to take meal breaks.

7

(Mot. at 1.)

8

suggested legal standard, arguing that employers have an

9

affirmative obligation to ensure that workers are actually relieved

Defendant contends that it did not

Plaintiff disputes this factual allegation and the

10

of all duty during meal periods.

11

II.

(Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. at 7-8.)

DISCUSSION

12

“The law on this issue is unsettled.”

Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA,

13

Inc., 181 Cal. App. 4th 1286, 1303 (2010).

The California Courts

14

of Appeals have reached conflicting decisions and the Supreme Court

15

has granted review.

16

133 Cal. App. 4th 949, 962 (2005) (“[E]mployers have an affirmative

17

obligation to ensure that workers are actually relieved of all

18

duty.”

19

Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct., 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 781, 802 (2008)

20

(“[E]mployers need only make meal breaks available, not ‘ensure’

21

they are taken . . . .”), review granted, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 688

22

(2008); Brinkley v. Pub. Storage, Inc., 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 873, 883

23

(2008) (same), review granted, 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 674 (2009); In re

24

Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 590, 600-03 (2011)

25

(same), review granted, July 20, 2011.

Compare Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc.,

(internal quotation marks omitted)), with, e.g., Brinker

26

The California Supreme Court’s review of these decisions is

27

likely to clarify the law, impacting both substantive claims and

28

class certification.

See In re Taco Bell Wage & Hour Actions, No.
2

1

07-CV-01314, 2011 WL 3846727 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011) (“The

2

California Supreme Court’s resolution of Brinker and Brinkley will

3

clarify employer obligations regarding rest and meal breaks and

4

will likely determine whether Plaintiffs’ proposed rest and meal

5

break subclasses may be certified.”).

6

have therefore stayed relevant proceedings, in the interest of

7

“judicial economy and the orderly course of justice.”

8

also, e.g., Gong–Chun v. AETNA, Inc., No. 09–CV–01995, 2010 WL

9

1980175, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2010); Minor v. FedEx, No. C

Numerous district courts

Id.; see

10

09–1375, 2009 WL 1955816, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2009); Lew v.

11

Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. C 08–1993, 2009 WL 1384975, at *2 (N.D.

12

Cal. Feb. 24, 2009).

13

Further, on October 4, 2011, the California Supreme Court

14

scheduled oral argument in Brinker, for November 8, 2011.

15

Supreme Court of California, Oral Argument Calendar, San Francisco

16

Session, November 8 and 9, 2011, available at http://

17

www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/calendars/documents/SNOV11.PDF.

18

Court typically issues its decision within ninety days of oral

19

argument.

20

forth the Court’s operating practices and procedures), available at

21

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2007_Supreme_Court_Booklet.pdf.

22

The Court should therefore issue its decision in Brinker by

23

February 6, 2011.

24

See

The

See The Supreme Court of California 23 (2007) (setting

Accordingly, it is in the interest of judicial economy and

25

justice for the court to continue the Motion here, as to

26

Plaintiff’s meal period and allegedly derivative claims, until

27

after the California Supreme Court issues its decision establishing

28

the relevant legal standard.

Because the Motion and pending
3

1

decision will also impact class certification, the briefing

2

schedule must be modified as well.

3

III. CONCLUSION

4

For the reasons stated above, the court continues Defendant’s

5

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to February 13, 2012 at 10:00

6

a.m.

7

schedule as follows: the last day to file a motion regarding class

8

certification is February 28, 2012; the opposition must be filed by

9

April 5, 2012; and the reply is due by May 3, 2012.

The court also modifies the class certification briefing

Finally, the

10

parties are directed to inform the court immediately, if the

11

California Supreme Court issues a decision in its review of Brinker

12

before February 6, 2011.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: October 25, 2011
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4