Kevin Mays v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. et al

Filing 76

JUDGMENT by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, in favor of Time Warner Cable, Inc. against Kevin Mays: Partial Summary judgment having been granted in favor of Defendant, and the jury having rendered a verdict in favor of Defendant on the remaining causes of action, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. That judgment be, and hereby is, entered in favor of the Defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc. and against Plaintiff Kevin Mays; 2. That Plaintiff Kevin Mays shall take nothing;3. That Defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc. shall recov er its costs. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP
James A. Bowles (Bar No. 089383)
E–mail: [e-mail]
Casey L. Morris (Bar No. 238455)
E–mail: [e-mail]
Erika A. Silverman (Bar No. 301864)
E–mail: [e-mail]
One California Plaza, 37th Floor
300 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071–3147
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

E-FILED 12/5/17
JS-6

Attorneys for Defendant
Time Warner Cable, Inc.

A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE CALIFORNIA PLAZA, 37TH FLOOR
300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071–3147

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

KEVIN MAYS,
Plaintiff,

13
14

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00120-PSG-JPR
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

vs.

15

TIME WARNER CABLE,

16

Defendant.

Trial:
November 28, 2017
Ct. room: 6A
Judge:
Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez

17
18

On October 4, 2017, after full consideration of the papers submitted in

19

support of and in opposition to Defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc.’s Motion for

20

Summary Judgment, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant

21

as to Plaintiff Kevin Mays’ first cause of action for disability discrimination,

22

second cause of action for failure to accommodate a disability, third cause of action

23

for failure to engage in the interactive process, fourth cause of action for racial

24

discrimination, fifth cause of action for age discrimination, and sixth cause of

25

action for failure to prevent discrimination. This Court also granted partial

26

summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action for unpaid overtime and

27

wages, eighth and ninth causes of action for wage statement violations, and tenth

28

cause of action for waiting time penalties as to meal and rest periods and vacation
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

pay.

2

Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action for unpaid off-the-clock overtime

3

wages, wage statement violations, and waiting time penalties came on regularly for

4

trial between November 28, 2017 and November 29, 2017 in Courtroom 6A of the

5

United States District Court, Central District of California, located at 350 W. 1st

6

Street, before the Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Court Judge.

7

Plaintiff was represented by Sean M. Novak of The Novak Law Firm, P.C.

8

Defendant was represented by James A. Bowles and Erika A. Silverman of Hill,

9

Farrer & Burrill LLP.

A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE CALIFORNIA PLAZA, 37TH FLOOR
300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071–3147

HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP

10

A jury of eight (8) persons was regularly empaneled and sworn. Witnesses

11

were sworn and testified and documentary evidence was introduced and admitted

12

into evidence. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was

13

duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury. The jury

14

deliberated and thereafter returned to the Court with their unanimous verdict as

15

follows:

16

I.

17
18
19
20

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES
(1)

Did Kevin Mays perform any overtime work while not clocked in

between April 21, 2012 and May 10, 2013?
 Yes

___ No

21
22

If your answer to question number 1 is “yes,” then answer question number

23

2. If your answer to question number 1 is “no,” stop here, answer no further

24

questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

25
26
27
28

(2)

Did Time Warner Cable, Inc. know, or should it have reasonably

known, that Mays performed overtime work while not clocked in between April 21,
2012 and May 10, 2013?
–2–
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1
___ Yes

2

 No

3
If your answer to question number 2 is “yes,” then answer question number

4
5

3. If your answer to question number 2 is “no,” stop here, answer no further

6

questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

7
8

(3)

Did Time Warner Cable, Inc. fail to pay Mays for his overtime work

that he performed while not clocked in between April 21, 2012 and May 10, 2013?

9
___ Yes

A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE CALIFORNIA PLAZA, 37TH FLOOR
300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071–3147

HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP

10

___ No

11
If your answer to question number 3 is “yes,” then answer question number

12
13

4. If your answer to question number 3 is “no,” stop here, answer no further

14

questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

15
16

(4)

(a) Please state the number of overtime minutes Mays worked while

not clocked in from April 21, 2012 through May 10, 2013:

17

_______ minutes

18
(b) What is the total amount of unpaid overtime wages defendant Time

19
20

Warner Cable, Inc. owes to Mays for the period from April 21, 2012 through May

21

10, 2013?

22

$ _______

23
Please go to question number 5.

24
25
26
27

II.

WAITING TIME PENALTIES
Please answer the below questions only if you answered “yes” to question

number 3. If you answered “no,” to question number 1, 2, or 3, answer no further

28
–3–
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

2
3
4

(5)

Did Time Warner Cable, Inc. fail to pay Mays all wages due to him on

the date that Mays’ employment ended on May 10, 2013?
___ Yes

5

___ No

6
7
8

If your answer to question number 5 is “yes,” then answer question number
6. If your answer to question number 5 is “no,” go to question number 7.

9

A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE CALIFORNIA PLAZA, 37TH FLOOR
300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071–3147

HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP

10
11

(6)

Was Time Warner Cable, Inc.’s failure to pay Mays the wages owed to

him on May 10, 2013 willful?
___ Yes

12

___ No

13
14
15

Go to question number 7.
III.

WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS

16
17
18
19
20

Please answer the below questions only if you answered “yes” to question
number 3. If you answered “no” to question number 1, 2, or 3, answer no further
questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
(7)

Did Mays’ wage statements violate the requirements of California

21

Labor Code § 226(a) by failing to accurately state at least one of the following

22

items: (a) the amount of wages ow ed to Mays; (b) the amount of hours worked by

23

Mays; (c) Mays’ hourly rates; and/or (d) the amount of hours worked by Mays at

24

each hourly rate?

25

___ Yes

___ No

26
27
28

If your answer to question number 7 is “yes,” then answer question number
–4–
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

8. If your answer to question number 7 is “no,” stop here, answer no further

2

questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

3
4
5
6

(8)

Were Time Warner Cable, Inc.’s wage statement violations knowing

and intentional?
___ Yes

___ No

7
8
9

A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE CALIFORNIA PLAZA, 37TH FLOOR
300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071–3147

HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP

10
11
12
13

If your answer to question number 8 is “yes,” then answer question number
9. If your answer to question number 8 is “no,” stop here, answer no further
questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
(9)

Was Mays injured from the inaccurate or incomplete wage statements?

___ Yes

___ No

14
15
16
17

If your answer to question number 9 is “yes,” then answer question number
10. If your answer to question number 9 is “no,” stop here, answer no further
questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

18
19

(10)

During how many pay periods between April 21, 2014 and April 21,

20

2015 did Time Warner Cable, Inc. knowingly and intentionally violate the wage

21

statement requirements set forth in California Labor Code § 226(a)?

22

________ pay periods.

23
24
25
26
27
28
–5–
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

Partial Summary judgment having been granted in favor of Defendant, and

2

the jury having rendered a verdict in favor of Defendant on the remaining causes of

3

action, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

4
5

1.

That judgment be, and hereby is, entered in favor of the Defendant

Time Warner Cable, Inc. and against Plaintiff Kevin Mays;

6

2.

That Plaintiff Kevin Mays shall take nothing;

7

3.

That Defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc. shall recover its costs.

8
9

A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE CALIFORNIA PLAZA, 37TH FLOOR
300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071–3147

HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP

10
11

12/5/17
DATED: ___________________

12

________________________________
Philip S. Gutierrez
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17

HFB 1847331.1 A5431062

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–6–
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT