Culley v. Lincare Inc. et al
Filing
85
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 4/24/2017 GRANTING 76 Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING 83 Ex Parte Application to Strike the defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgment. (Michel, G.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHRISTINA CULLEY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK
v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LINCARE INC.; ALPHA
RESPIRATORY INC.; and DOES 1
through 50,
16
Defendants.
17
In this putative class action, Plaintiff Christina Culley alleges various employment
18
19
claims under California law against her former employers, Defendants Lincare Inc. and
20
Alpha Respiratory Inc. Apart from her class action claims, Plaintiff also sets forth several
21
claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). On October 20, 2016,
22
Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 67, in which they
23
sought to resolve 15 legal issues. The Court granted that motion in part and denied it in
24
part in its February 21, 2017, Memorandum and Order. ECF No. 75. Now before the
25
Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Summary Judgment,
26
ECF No. 76, and Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion for
27
///
28
///
1
1
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 83. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion is
2
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application is DENIED.1
3
4
BACKGROUND
5
6
Defendants employed Plaintiff as a Healthcare Specialist from September 2010
7
through September 2015. Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee and claims she
8
was entitled to overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. Defendant Lincare Inc. paid her
9
on an hourly basis, and she received a bonus as additional compensation. In addition to
10
eight-hour shifts, she was also expected to be on-call certain evenings and weekends to
11
handle customer issues that arose outside regular business hours.
12
13
On August 10, 2016, the Court certified Plaintiff’s two proposed classes, defined
as:
14
(1) all individuals who are or previously were employed by
Defendants as nonexempt employees during October 21,
2010, to the present (the “Class Period”), for (a) failure to pay
overtime wages under the UCL and California Labor Code
section 510 (the “overtime claim”), and (b) “failure to put in
place a lawful meal period policy applicable up to the change
in policy occurring in October 2014” under the UCL (the “meal
period claim”), and (2) a subclass of Healthcare Specialist
and Service Representative employees for failure to pay
reporting time wages under the UCL (the “reporting time
claim”).
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mem. & Order, ECF No. 59, at 6. The Court’s February 21, 2017, Memorandum and
21
Order adjudicating Defendants’ original Motion for Summary Judgment disposed of
22
some of Plaintiff’s causes of action as legally insufficient and circumscribed the relief
23
available to Plaintiff under the relevant statutes.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28
1
Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this
matter submitted on the briefs. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g).
2
1
DISCUSSION
2
3
“[D]istrict courts have discretion to entertain successive motions for summary
4
judgment . . . .” Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F. 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). At the same
5
time, “district courts retain discretion to ‘weed out frivolous or simply repetitive motions.’”
6
Id. (quoting Knox v. Sw. Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1997)). In the Pretrial
7
Scheduling Order, the Court ordered the parties to file only one summary judgment
8
motion or cross-motion, and to seek leave of the Court if they wanted to file additional
9
motions. Pretrial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 52, at 4.
10
Defendants wish to move for summary judgment on three issues: (1) Plaintiff’s
11
unpaid overtime claim; (2) Plaintiff’s meal period claim; and (3) the constitutionality of
12
certain penalties sought by Plaintiff. See Defs.’ Mem. of P & A in Supp. of Mot. for
13
Leave to File Second Mot. Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 76-1, at 2–4. Defendants
14
claim that new evidence—expert testimony—shows that the Defendants included their
15
quarterly bonus in the calculation of the class members’ overtime pay rate. Id. at 2–3.
16
They also contend that, “[n]ow that discovery has closed, . . . it is clear that the class
17
does not have a viable damages model” that would allow Plaintiff’s meal period claim to
18
proceed on a class basis. Id. at 3. Finally, Defendants argue that, in light of the Court’s
19
ruling on the original Motion for Summary Judgment, the penalties sought for certain
20
violations are unconstitutionally excessive. Id. at 4 (“Plaintiff, for example, is owed only
21
87 cents in overtime, making her claim for penalties in excess of $6,000
22
unconstitutionally excessive.”).
23
Plaintiff initially opposes the motion by arguing that there is no expanded factual
24
record to support the filing of a second motion. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 4–5. This is because,
25
she claims, “the sole expansion of the factual record is [an] expert report . . . , but that
26
expert report does not rely on any fact that was unknown to the Defendants when the
27
first Motion for Summary Judgment was filed.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff also argues that
28
Defendants’ opposition to the meal period claim is both frivolous and repetitive,
3
1
duplicating their opposition to class certification. See id. at 6–8.
2
Plaintiff’s arguments are unavailing. An expert report certainly constitutes
3
evidence, regardless of the facts relied upon in creating that report. Additionally,
4
Defendants’ objection to the meal period claim is not duplicative of prior arguments.
5
Instead, “Defendants intend to challenge the proposed damages model of the class as
6
unworkable.” Defs.’ Mot., at 3. Defendants claim that Plaintiff has failed to provide
7
sufficient evidence to allow the meal period claim to proceed on a class-wide basis. See
8
id. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s expert report on the subject of a damages model was
9
submitted only on March 9, 2017, well after Defendants filed their original motion for
10
summary judgment. Defs.’ Reply, ECF No. 79, at 8. Accordingly, the Court finds that
11
Defendants’ proposed Second Motion for Summary Judgment (“Second MSJ”), ECF
12
No. 81, is neither frivolous nor repetitive. Instead, it appears likely that allowing a
13
second motion for summary judgment will “foster the ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive’
14
resolution’ of this suit,” Hoffman, 593 F.3d at 911 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1), by resolving
15
several issues prior to trial. Thus, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.2
16
///
17
///
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Defendants filed their Second MSJ before the Court ruled on their motion for leave to file such a
motion. That motion was filed “out of an abundance of caution,” “[s]ince the deadline to file summary
judgment motions [was] April 6, 2017.” Id. at 2 n.1. Defendants also note in that motion that “[i]if the Court
denies the motion for leave, then Defendants will . . . withdraw this motion.” Id.
Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Strike Defendants’ Second MSJ, based primarily on “the
prejudice of incurring fees and costs in opposing the second motion for summary judgment.” Pl.’s Ex
Parte Appl., at 2. Plaintiff, however, provides no justification for why the extreme remedy of striking the
Second MSJ is appropriate. Given Plaintiff’s concerns about the potential of preparing an unnecessary
opposition, she could have requested relief from the Pretrial Scheduling Order’s briefing schedule or some
other less drastic remedy. Additionally, Plaintiff’s objection to Defendants’ evidence is more properly
addressed in an opposition to the Second MSJ itself. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application is DENIED.
4
1
CONCLUSION
2
3
For the reasons provided, Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for
4
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 76, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to
5
Strike Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 83, is DENIED.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 24, 2017
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?