Thomas Rix et al v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: RE CLASS ALLEGATIONS by Judge Gary A. Feess. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why his class allegations should not be stricken on the basis of collateral estoppel or otherwise. Plaintiff is herebyORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than Friday, May 17, 2013. Failure to do so willresult in the striking of Plaintiff's class allegations Cause due by 5/17/2013. (rfi)

LINK: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-02624 GAF (SPx)

Title

Thomas Rix et al v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 2, 2013

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Renee Fisher
Deputy Clerk

None
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: RE CLASS ALLEGATIONS

On April 15, 2013, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed”) removed this
action from Los Angeles County Superior Court on the basis of CAFA. (Docket No. 1, [Not. of
Removal].) This labor class action stems predominantly from the alleged misclassification of
Plaintiff Thomas Rix and similarly situated employees. (Not of Removal, Ex. 1 [Compl.].)
The procedural history of this action, though new to this Court, is complex. Plaintiff
previously brought a class action against Lockheed in the Southern District of California in
September of 2009, CV 09-02063 CAB (NLSx), involving nearly identical classes and nearly
identical claims. (CV 09-02063, Docket No. 21, [First Am. Compl. (“FAC”)].) Due to the
presence of a lone FLSA claim, that action was brought both on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction and CAFA. (Id.) Specifically, in the 09-02063 action, Plaintiff brought his FAC on
behalf of a class and subclass. First, the “California Class” consisting of:
[A]ll individuals who are or previously were employed either [sic] by Defendant
Lockheed Martin Corporation as an Industrial Security Representative . . . in California
during the period beginning on the date four years before the filing of this complaint and
ending on the date as determined by the court . . . .
(FAC ¶ 8.) And second, the “California Labor Subclass” consisting of:
[A] subclass which consists of all members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who were
employed by DEFENDANT during the period beginning on the date three (3) years prior
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

LINK: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-02624 GAF (SPx)

Date

Title

May 2, 2013

Thomas Rix et al v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al
to the filing of the action and ending on the date as determined by the Court . . . , who
performed work in excess of eight (8) hours in one day and/or forty (40) hours in one
week and/or hours on the seventh (7th) consecutive day of a workweek and did not
receive overtime compensation . . . .

(Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff later moved to certify the following class:
[T]hose individuals employed by Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation (‘Lockheed’)
who were classified as exempt and worked in a position with the title ‘Industrial Security
Representative’ or ‘Industrial Security Representative, Senior’ during the period
September 21, 2005 to the present (the ‘Class Period’).
(CV 09-02063, Docket No. 42-1, [Mot. to Certify] at 1.) The court denied class certification and
eventually dismissed Plaintiff’s state claims as predominating over the single FLSA claim. (CV
09-2063, Docket No. 62, [Order Denying Cert.]; Docket No. 108, [Order Dismissing State
Claims].)
Plaintiff, for reasons unknown, refiled his state claims in Los Angeles County Superior
Court again as a class action. Plaintiff seeks to represent a nearly identical class and subclass.
First, the “California Class” consisting of:
[A]ll individuals who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California as
Industrial Security Representatives and were classified as exempt from overtime wages . .
. at any time during the period beginning September 21, 2005 and ending on the date as
determined by the Court . . . .
(Compl. ¶ 7.) And second, the “California Labor Subclass” consisting of:
[A]ll members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who are or previously were employed by
DEFENDANT in California as Industrial Security Representatives and were classified as
exempt from overtime wages . . . during the period beginning September 21, 2006 and
ending on the date as determined by the Court.
(Id. ¶ 35.)

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

LINK: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-02624 GAF (SPx)

Date

Title

May 2, 2013

Thomas Rix et al v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al

Plaintiff already tested these nearly identical classes, premised on nearly identical claims,
in front of the Southern District of California, which “conclude[d] that because individual
inquiries will predominate over common questions, Plaintiff cannot meet the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).” (Order Denying Cert. at 12.) While Plaintiff makes no secret of
the fact that the 2009 action occurred, he fails to note that the class certification issue was
already fully litigated. (See Compl. ¶ 2.)
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why his class allegations
should not be stricken on the basis of collateral estoppel or otherwise. Plaintiff is hereby
ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than Friday, May 17, 2013. Failure to do so will
result in the striking of Plaintiff’s class allegations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3