Anna Nguyen v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation et al

Filing 127

JUDGMENT by Judge Cormac J. Carney, in favor of Baxter Healthcare Corporation against Anna Nguyen. (See document for details.) IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDICATED that all claims are dismissed with prejudice on the merits in their entirety, that judgment isentered in favor of Defendant, and that Defendant recover its costs. (rla)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 ANNA NGUYEN, an individual, on ) Case No. SACV 10-01436 CJC (SSx) behalf of herself and all others similarly ) situated, ) [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN ) FAVOR OF DEFENDANT Plaintiff, ) BAXTER HEALTHCARE ) CORPORATION v. ) ) BAXTER HEALTHCARE ) CORPORATION, a Delaware ) Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, ) Inclusive, Hon. Cormac J. Carney ) Judge: 9B ) Ctrm.: Defendants. ) ) Complaint Filed: August 23, 2010 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [ Case No. SACV 10-01436 CJC (SSx) 1 On August 23, 2010, Plaintiff Anna Nguyen (“Plaintiff”), the named 2 Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, filed a class action lawsuit against 3 Defendant Baxter Healthcare Corporation (“Defendant”) alleging the following 4 claims: 1) “Failure to Provide Rest Periods and Meal Periods or Compensation in 5 Lieu Thereof” pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and IWC Wage 6 Order 1; 2) “Failure to Timely Pay Wages” pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 7 201, 202, and 203; 3) “Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Employee Wage 8 Statements” pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 226, 1174, and 1174; 4) 9 “Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime Wages” pursuant to California Labor 10 Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194; and 5) “Violations of the Unfair Competition Law” 11 pursuant to California Government Code §§ 17200, et seq. On February 9, 2011, 12 Plaintiff filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint adding a derivative claim 13 for “Violation of Labor Code Section 2699, et seq.” (the California Private 14 Attorney Act, “PAGA”). 15 On March 23, 2011, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss 16 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in its entirety but allowed Plaintiff the 17 opportunity to amend her complaint. 18 In response, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint 19 (“SAC”) on April 6, 2011. The SAC alleged four claims: 1) “Failure to Provide 20 Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof” pursuant to California Labor Code 21 §§ 226.7, 512, and IWC Wage Order 1; 2) “Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized 22 Employee Wage Statements” pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 226, 1174, and 23 1174; 3) “Violations of the Unfair Competition Law” pursuant to California 24 Government Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and 4) “Violation of Labor Code Section 25 2699, et seq.” (i.e., PAGA). 26 On October 3, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to 27 each of the claims in the SAC. On November 28, 2011, the Court, having 28 considered all material filed in support of and in opposition to this summary 1 Case No. SACV 10-01436 CJC (SSx) 1 judgment motion, granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its 2 entirety and the case was terminated. 3 IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDICATED that all 4 claims are dismissed with prejudice on the merits in their entirety, that judgment is 5 entered in favor of Defendant, and that Defendant recover its costs. 6 7 Dated: December 7, 2011 8 ______________________________ Honorable Cormac J. Carney United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13990528v.1 2 Case No. SACV 10-01436 CJC (SSx)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?