Jared Andresen et al v. International Paper Company et al

Filing 125

MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court DENIES Plaintiff Yeghia Bekiarian's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's 8/11/2014 order granting defendant International Paper Company, d/b/a Container the Americas's 12(B)(6) Motion 80 . Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-02079-CAS(AJWx)

Title

JARED ANDRESEN, ET AL. V. INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’

October 21, 2014

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Laura Elias
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Douglas Silverstein
Lauren Morrison

Amy Gillinger
Marcus Torrano
Jason Campbell

Proceedings:

I.

PLAINTIFF YEGHIA BEKIARIAN’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT IP’S 12(B)(6) MOTION (Dkt. 80, filed September
8, 2014)

INTRODUCTION

On February 13, 2013, plaintiffs Jared Andresen, Yeghia Bekiarian, and John
Duffy filed suit against defendants International Paper Company, d/b/a Container the
Americas (“IP”) and Does 1-50 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. IP removed
the action to this Court on March 22, 2013. Dkt. 1. The operative second amended
complaint (“SAC”) asserts claims for failure to pay vested vacation wages upon
termination, in violation of Labor Code § 227.3,1 failure to pay wages, waiting time
penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 202-03, violation of the Unfair Competition Law
(“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., violation of the record-keeping
provisions set forth in Labor Code § 226, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel.
Dkt. 21. IP filed an amended answer on April 23, 2014, in which it asserts counterclaims
against Bekiarian for breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty, gross
negligence, and intentional misrepresentation. Dkt. 43. On June 24, 2014, in response to
IP’s counterclaims, Bekiarian filed an answer and counterclaim in reply. Dkt. 61. The
reply counterclaim asserts a single claim for indemnification based on Labor Code §
2802, California Corporations Code § 317, and IP’s corporate bylaws. Reply Countercl.
¶¶ 112-18.

1

References to “Labor Code” are to the California Labor Code.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-02079-CAS(AJWx)

October 21, 2014

Title

JARED ANDRESEN, ET AL. V. INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY, ET AL.

IP filed a motion to dismiss the reply counterclaim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on July 14, 2014. Dkt. 61. On August 11, 2014, the Court
denied IP’s motion insofar as it was based on California Corporations Code § 317, but
granted the motion insofar as it was based on Labor Code § 2802 and IP’s corporate
bylaws. Dkt. 65.
On September 8, 2014, Bekiarian filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
August 11, 2014 order. Dkt. 80. Bekiarian only challenges the Court’s decision with
regard to California Labor Code § 2802. Id. IP opposed the motion on September 29,
2014. Dkt. 10.2 The Court held a hearing on October 21, 2014. Having considered the
parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are former employees of defendant IP who allege that defendant has
deprived them of severance pay, vested vacation wages, and commissions that they
accrued during their employment. See generally SAC. The crux of IP’s counterclaims is
that, to the extent that IP is liable to plaintiffs for accrued vacation pay, Bekiarian is
partially responsible for creating this liability. Specifically, IP alleges that Bekiarian
“created and subjected Crockett, [Temple-Inland, and IP] to material contingent paid
vacation accrual liability” as to certain sales representatives, including plaintiffs
Andresen and Duffy, while at the same time instructing human resources and accounting
employees under his control not to provide paid vacation for IP’s sales representatives,
and not to account for accruing vacation pay liability. Countercl. ¶¶ 5-20. In the reply
counterclaim, Bekiarian alleges that, to the extent that IP has incurred any liability as a
result of Bekiarian’s actions, this liability was incurred as a result of Bekiarian carrying
out his duties as an employee of IP. Reply Countercl. ¶¶ 114-15.

2

On August 11, 2014, Bekiarian filed an identical counterclaim against IP in the
related matter of Farris v. International Paper, 5:13-cv-00485-CAS-SPx. IP filed a
motion to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on October 6, 2014.
In light of the Court’s decision in the Farris matter, Bekiarian’s counsel stated at the
October 6, 2014 hearing that he would not file a reply in connection with the instant
motion.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-02079-CAS(AJWx)

October 21, 2014

Title

JARED ANDRESEN, ET AL. V. INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY, ET AL.

In partially granting IP’s motion to dismiss Bekiarian’s reply counterclaim, the
Court found “Section 2802 [] inapplicable to the present case because Bekiarian is
engaged in litigation against his employer, and not a third party.” Dkt. 65 at 4.
III.

LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 7–18 sets forth the bases upon which the Court may reconsider its
decision on any motion:
A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made
only on the grounds of: (a) a material difference in fact or law from that
presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable
diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration
at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a
change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest
showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before
such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any
oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original
motion.
L.R. 7–18.
IV.

DISCUSSION

Bekiarian asserts that reconsideration is proper for two reasons. The Court
addresses each in turn.
First, Bekiarian argues that reconsideration is proper because there has been a
change in the relevant law governing Labor Code § 2802. Mot. Recon. 6. Specifically,
Bekiarian asserts that Cochran v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc., 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137
(2014)—decided the day after the Court granted in part IP’s motion to
dismiss—mandates reconsideration because it “confirms [that] an employee may sue his
employer directly for indemnification under Labor Code § 2802.” Id.
The Court finds that Cochran did not effect a “change in the law.” Rather, as
Bekiarian himself argues, Cochran merely confirmed than an employee may sue his
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-02079-CAS(AJWx)

October 21, 2014

Title

JARED ANDRESEN, ET AL. V. INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY, ET AL.

employer for indemnification under Section 2802 in certain situations—namely, when an
employer attempts to pass its operating expenses onto its employees. 228 Cal. App. 4th
at 1144. In that regard, the Cochran court held that “when employees must use their
personal cell phones for work-related calls, Labor Code section 2802 requires the
employer to reimburse them.” Id. at 1140. Accordingly, the Cochran court did not
change the law of Section 2802 and the Court declines to reconsider Bekiarian’s motion
on this basis.
Second, Bekiarian argues that reconsideration is appropriate because the Court
“failed to consider the material fact that Bekiarian' s counterclaim against IP sought
indemnification under Labor Code § 2802 for third-party vacation pay liability alleged by
John Duffy [] and Jared Andresen . . . .” Mot. Recon. at 3 (emphasis in original). Bekiarian
appears to assert that, had the Court considered this material fact, the Court would have
found that O'Hara v. Teamsters Union Local #856, 151 F. 3d 1152 (9th Cir. 1998), required
denial of IP’s motion to dismiss.
The Court finds that plaintiff has not made the requisite “manifest showing of a
failure to consider material facts.” As reflected in the August 11, 2014 order, the Court
was aware that Bekiarian sought indemnification for liability arising from the claims
asserted by plaintiffs Duffy and Andresen against IP. The Court simply found that,
because Bekiarian was not engaged in litigation against these “third-party” plaintiffs,
Section 2802 was not applicable. Dkt. 65 at 4. Accordingly, the Court considered this
material fact and declines to reconsider its August 11, 2014 order on this basis.

V.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES plaintiff Bekiarian’s motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s August 11, 2014 order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

15

CMJ

Page 4 of 4