Quiroz v. City of Ceres

Filing 29

ORDER Granting in Part Plaintiffs 13 Motion for Conditional Certification and Facilitated Class Notice, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/22/2017. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARLOS A. QUIROZ,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:17-cv-00444-DAD-MJS

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL
CERTIFICATION AND FACILITATED
CLASS NOTICE

v.
CITY OF CERES,
Defendant.

(Doc. No. 13)

17
18

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification and

19

facilitated notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”). A

20

hearing on the motion was held on June 6, 2017. Attorney Ace T. Tate appeared on behalf of

21

plaintiff, and attorney Jesse J. Maddox appeared on behalf of defendant. Having considered the

22

parties’ briefs and oral arguments and for the reasons set forth below, the court will grant in part

23

plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification and adopt the parties’ stipulation.

24
25

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Carlos A. Quiroz is employed as a police officer for defendant City of Ceres

26

(“City”). According to the complaint and to plaintiff’s declaration submitted in support of the

27

pending motion, as part of a collective bargaining agreement the City offered and plaintiff

28

accepted an option to receive monetary compensation in lieu of certain City-sponsored health
1

1

benefits. (Doc. No. 1 (“Compl.”) at ¶ 25; Doc. No. 13-2 (“Quiroz Decl.”) at ¶¶ 4, 6.) Plaintiff

2

alleges that, for the three years prior to the commencement of this action, the City failed to

3

include these in-lieu payments in its calculation of plaintiff’s regular rate of pay, resulting in an

4

underpayment of overtime compensation. (Compl. at ¶ 26; Quiroz Decl. at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff further

5

alleges that defendant’s failure to fully compensate him and others similarly situated constitutes a

6

violation of the FLSA. See Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 824 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2016)

7

(holding that cash payments in lieu of health benefits “must be included in the regular rate of pay

8

and thus in the calculation of the overtime rate” under the FLSA).

9

On March 29, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification and facilitated

10

notice under the FLSA. (Doc. No. 13.) On April 17, 2017, defendant filed its opposition. (Doc.

11

No. 18.) On April 24, 2017, plaintiff filed his reply. (Doc. No. 22.)

12

CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION

13

Pursuant to the FLSA, an employee may file a civil action, on behalf of himself and other

14

employees similarly situated, against an employer that fails to adhere to federal minimum wage

15

and overtime law. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); see also Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S.

16

___, 133 S. Ct. 1523, 1527 (2013). Unlike a class action brought under Rule 23 of the Federal

17

Rules of Civil Procedure, similarly situated employees can join an FLSA collective action only if

18

they opt-in by giving written consent to be joined. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

19

The FLSA does not define the term “similarly situated,” and this court has identified no

20

binding Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court authority interpreting that term. However, district courts

21

in this circuit have used a two-step approach to decide whether potential FLSA plaintiffs are

22

similarly situated. See, e.g., Kellgren v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., No. 13CV644 L KSC, 2015

23

WL 5167144, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2015); Syed v. M-I, L.L.C., No. 1:12-cv-01718-AWI-MJS,

24

2014 WL 6685966, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2014); Troy v. Kehe Food Distributors, Inc., 276

25

F.R.D. 642, 649 (W.D. Wash. 2011); Lewis v. Wells Fargo Co., 669 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1127

26

(N.D. Cal. 2009); Leuthold v. Destination Am., Inc., 224 F.R.D. 462, 467–68 (N.D. Cal. 2004);

27

Wynn v. National Broad. Co., 234 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1082 (C.D. Cal. 2002). In the first step,

28

district courts may conditionally certify the proposed class based on consideration of the parties’
2

1

pleadings and affidavits. Leuthold, 224 F.R.D. at 467. This determination is made under a

2

“lenient standard”—requiring a preliminary determination that notice is appropriate and that “the

3

putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan.” Lewis,

4

669 F. Supp. 2d at 1127 (citing Thiessen v. General Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1102

5

(10th Cir. 2001)). “The sole consequence of conditional certification is the sending of court-

6

approved written notice to employees.” Genesis Healthcare, 133 S. Ct. at 1530 (citing

7

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 171–72 (1989)). District courts have the

8

authority to facilitate notice to potential plaintiffs and may set a deadline for plaintiffs to opt in.

9

Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing

10

Hoffmann-La Roche, 493 U.S. at 169). In the second step, after class members have opted in and

11

discovery has taken place, the party opposing class certification may seek to decertify the class.

12

Leuthold, 224 F.R.D. at 467.

13

Here, plaintiff Quiroz has met his burden of showing at the first step that conditional

14

certification is warranted. At this stage in the litigation, the parties do not dispute defining those

15

“similarly situated” as “all current or former employees of the City of Ceres who have worked

16

statutory overtime and received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits or savings payments

17

if they chose coverage through the City that does not utilize the full dollar allowance.” (Doc. No.

18

13-4 at 1–2; see also Doc. Nos. 18 at 1–2; 18-2 ¶ 2; 22 at 8.)1 Plaintiff contends that his decision

19

to receive monetary compensation in lieu of health benefits is part of a broader uniform City

20

policy affecting other employees. (See Quiroz Decl. ¶¶ 9–10.) In addition, based on plaintiff’s

21

personal knowledge and belief, the City similarly excludes such in-lieu compensation from its

22

calculation of regular rates of pay for purposes of overtime compensation. (Id. ¶ 10.) Based on

23

these representations, the court is satisfied and accordingly grants conditional certification of the

24

proposed class.

25

/////

26
27
28

1

The parties agreed to this proposed definition at the hearing on the pending motion based on
defendant City’s concerns that the class be limited to those employees who were paid overtime
pursuant to the FLSA. Plaintiff expressed no objection to the substance of defendant’s concern.
3

1

FACILITATED NOTICE

2

In furtherance of conditional certification, plaintiff proposes issuance of a facilitated

3

notice to all potential plaintiffs in this action. (See Doc. No. 13-4.) However, defendant City

4

requests that this court delay any issuance of a facilitated notice or limit the recipients of such

5

notice. Specifically, defendant points out that similar issues regarding overtime compensation

6

have been raised in two related cases brought against the City in this court: Jonathan McManus et

7

al. v. City of Ceres, No. 1:17-cv-00355-DAD-MJS, and Julio Amador et al. v. City of Ceres, No.

8

1:17-cv-00552-DAD-MJS. Because the McManus action may also involve conditional

9

certification under the FLSA, defendant argues that issuing a notice in this action now may waste

10

the parties’ resources and require potential plaintiffs to choose between actions. (See Doc. No. 18

11

at 2–3.) Alternatively, defendant proposes that notices not be issued to any named parties in the

12

related cases. (See Doc. No. 18 at 3.)

13

Good cause exists to issue a notice of collective action to all potential plaintiffs, as

14

defined in this order. The court finds no legal basis on which to exclude certain parties based on

15

their involvement in other actions. Because potential plaintiffs may only participate in an FLSA

16

collective action on an opt-in basis, it is ultimately up to those individuals to decide whether and

17

how they wish to proceed in litigation. To the extent any parties might later dispute whether an

18

individual may recover in multiple lawsuits, the court may resolve such a dispute at the

19

appropriate time. Therefore, the parties will be directed to meet and confer regarding the form of

20

the facilitated notice and the manner in which such notice will issue, and are encouraged to

21

submit a joint proposal for court approval.

22

CONCLUSION

23

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above:

24

1. Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action and for approval

25

of facilitated notice (Doc. No. 13) is granted in part, consistent with this order;

26

2. The court conditionally certifies this FLSA collective action for a class comprising all

27

current or former employees of the City of Ceres who have worked statutory overtime

28

and received cash payments in lieu of health care benefits or savings payments,
4

1

between February 17, 2014 and the date of entry of this order, if they chose coverage

2

through the City that does not utilize the full dollar allowance; and

3

3. The parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, to jointly file a proposed

4

notice within fourteen days of this order. Alternatively, in the absence of an

5

agreement, the parties are directed to file separate proposed notices by that same

6

deadline.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 22, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5