Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al.

Filing 344

ORDER ADOPTING the Findings and Recommendations, document 341 , re class certification. Order signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/2/2013. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR

CASE NO. CV F 07-1314 LJO DLB

12

ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ON CLASS
CERTIFICATION
(Doc. 341.)

13
14

/

15
16
17

INTRODUCTION
U.S. Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck issued November 27, 2012 findings and recommendations
(“f and r’s”) to certify the following class

18

Meal Break Subclass:

19

21

All persons who work or worked as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee at a
corporate-owned Taco Bell restaurant in California from September 7, 2003, until the
resolution of this lawsuit who worked for a period of time in excess of six hours and who
worked for periods longer than five hours without a meal period of not less than thirty
minutes as reflected in Defendants’ employees’ time records.

22

The parties filed objections to the f and r’s. Defendants Taco Bell Corp. and Taco Bell of

20

23

America, Inc. (collectively “defendants”) object that:

24

1.

The late meal break class was not properly pled in plaintiffs’ operative complaint;

25

2.

Members of the late meal class are not ascertainable;

26

3.

Plaintiffs fail to satisfy commonality requirements;

27

4.

Litigating late meal period claims as a class is neither manageable nor superior;

28

5.

The named plaintiffs fail to satisfy typicality requirements;
1

1

6.

The proposed class has internal conflicts of interest;

2

7.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is inadequate; and

3

8.

The late meal break class is overly inclusive.

4

Plaintiffs object that the f and r’s did not certify the unpaid meal break premium, on-duty meal

5

period agreement, and rest break classes. Plaintiffs fault the f and r’s analysis of these proposed classes.

6

This Court carefully considered the parties’ objections and carefully reviewed de novo the record

7

and f and r’s. This Court finds that the f and r’s adequately address concerns of defendants, who appear

8

to seek unrealistic perfection with the proposed late meal break class. Likewise, this Court finds that

9

the f and r’s correctly analyzed the proposed classes to result in recommendation of only the late break

10

class.

11

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

12

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

13

carefully evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations

14

are supported by the record and proper analysis.

15

Accordingly, this Court:

16

1.

17

ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s November 27, 2012 findings and
recommendations and in particular the recommendation to certify the following class:

18

Meal Break Subclass:

19

All persons who work or worked as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee at a
corporate-owned Taco Bell restaurant in California from September 7, 2003, until the
resolution of this lawsuit who worked for a period of time in excess of six hours and who
worked for periods longer than five hours without a meal period of not less than thirty
minutes as reflected in Defendants’ employees’ time records.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated:
24

January 2, 2013

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
66h44d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2