Pyara v. Sysco Corporation et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/29/2017 DENYING #42 , #44 Motions to Certify Class. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRIS PYARA on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No.: 2:15-CV-01208-JAM-KJN
[Honorable John A. Mendez]
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

v.
SYSCO CORPORATION; SYSCO
SACRAMENTO, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.

Date:
Time:
Crtm:

March 7, 2017
1:30 p.m.
6

Action Filed:
Action Removed:
Trial Date:

April 13, 2015
June 4, 2015
None Set

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION;
CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-01208-JAM-KJN

1
2

ORDER
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff Chris Pyara’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Class

3

Certification (“Motion”) (Doc. # 42-1) pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

4

Procedure. Defendants Sysco Sacramento, Inc. and Sysco Corporation (collectively,

5

“Defendants”) opposed the Motion (Doc. #46), and Plaintiff replied (Doc. #47). A hearing on

6

this Motion was held on March 7, 2017, in Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court for the

7

Eastern District of California, located at the Robert T. Matsui Courthouse, 501 I Street,

8

Sacramento, California 95814, the Honorable John A. Mendez presiding.

9
10

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #1-1) alleges ten causes of action against Defendants.

11

Pursuant to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #9), the Court issued an

12

order dismissing Plaintiff’s prior claims for failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal

13

periods, and failure to provide accurate wage statements from the Complaint (Doc. #18).

14

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. #34) alleges the following eight operative causes of

15

action: failure to pay straight time wages, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay all wages

16

due at the time of termination, unjust enrichment, conversion, fraud, violation of California’s

17

unfair competition laws and failure to reimburse necessary and reasonable business expenditures.

18

In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class and three subclasses:

19

Unpaid Straight Time Wages Class: All hourly paid drivers
employed by Sysco Sacramento, Inc. in the State of California at
any time from April 13, 2011 to the present.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Rest Period Subclass: All hourly paid drivers employed by Sysco
Sacramento, Inc. in the State of California at any time from April
13, 2011 to the present who worked more than 3.5 hours on any
day.
Reimbursement Subclass: All hourly paid drivers employed by
Sysco Sacramento, Inc. in the State of California at any time from
April 13, 2011 to the present who were required to use their
personal cell phones during their course of employment and were
not reimbursed for this use.
Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: All hourly paid drivers
employed by Sysco Sacramento, Inc. in the State of California at
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION;
CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-01208-JAM-KJN

1

any time from April 13, 2012, to the present whose employment
terminated with Sysco Sacramento, Inc. sometime between April
13, 2012 and the present.

2
3

FINDINGS

4

The Court denied the Motion based on the following findings:

5

A.

Numerosity (Rule 23(a)(1)): The numerosity requirement is satisfied.

6

B.

Commonality (Rule 23(a)(2)): The commonality requirement is not satisfied for

7
8

the proposed Unpaid Straight Time Wages Class and three Subclasses.
C.

9
10

appears that Plaintiff has shown typicality.
D.

11
12

Typicality (Rule 23(a)(3)): While the Court does not need to reach this issue, it

Adequacy (Rule 23(a)(4)): Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel have satisfied the
adequacy requirement.

E.

Predominance (Rule 23(b)(3)): The Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that questions of

13

law or fact common to the class would predominate over any questions affecting

14

only individual members has not been satisfied for the proposed Unpaid Straight

15

Time Wages Class and three Subclasses.

16

Further details of the Court’s reasons for denying the Motion are set forth in the transcript

17

of the March 7, 2017 hearing on the Motion and the March 9, 2017 Supplement to Court’s Ruling

18

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Doc. #55), copies of which are attached as

19

Exhibits A and B, respectively, and incorporated herein by reference.

20

After considering the papers and evidence in support of and in opposition to the Motion,

21

as well as oral argument, and for GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

22

Motion in its entirety.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: 3/29/2017

/s/ John A. Mendez____________
The Honorable John A. Mendez
U.S. District Court Judge

26
27
28
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION;
CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-01208-JAM-KJN