Harper, et al. v. Charter Communications, LLC et al

Filing 396

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge William B. Shubb on 5/8/2024 DENYING 386 Motion for Reconsideration. (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14

LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR,
HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and
PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and
on behalf of all others
similarly situated and all
aggrieved employees,

15
16
17
18

No.

2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
Defendant.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

----oo0oo---On February 7, 2024, plaintiffs moved for partial
summary judgment on various California Labor Code violations
relating to plaintiffs’ claim for unlawful calculation,
deduction, and payment of commission wages (Claim 5); and claim
for failure to provide timely and complete copies of employment
records (Claim 8).

(Docket No. 360.)

court denied the motion.

On March 20, 2024, the

(Docket No. 385.)

28
1

Plaintiffs now

1

request the court to reconsider its decision regarding their Cal.

2

Lab. Code § 1198.5 claim.

3

(Docket No. 386.)

The court declines to do so.

Plaintiffs have

4

identified no new evidence or intervening change in controlling

5

law since the court’s order issued.

6

demonstrate any clear error by the court or manifest injustice as

7

a result of the court’s ruling.

8

F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

9

plaintiffs’ argument concerning injunctive relief and the

10

applicability of Cal. Lab. Code § 1198.5(l) is misleading.

11

Plaintiffs neither ask for injunctive relief anywhere on the face

12

of their operative complaint1, nor have they obtained any

13

injunctive relief from this court.

14

Neither do plaintiffs

See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342
First,

Second, plaintiffs cite Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819

15

F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016) for the proposition that the $750

16

checks that defendant mailed plaintiffs to satisfy Section

17

1198.5(k)’s statutory penalty did not constitute full

18

satisfaction.

19

elides mailing checks (here) and holding funds in escrow (the

20

facts in Chen).

21

funds was conditioned on a district court dismissing a suit in

22

full, plaintiffs’ ability to draw on defendant’s checks here was

23

conditional on nothing whatsoever.

24

refusal to cash the checks that they received is not a judicial

This, too, is inapposite, chiefly in that it

Unlike in Chen, where the release of escrow

Plaintiffs’ unilateral

25
26
27
28

1

The operative complaint is the Second Amended
Complaint. (Docket No. 147.) While the previous complaints did
request injunctive relief as to Section 1198.5, plaintiffs
dropped their injunctive relief demand after defendant produced
the requested documents in discovery.
2

1

concern.

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for

3

reconsideration (Docket No. 386) be, and the same hereby is,

4

DENIED.2

5

Dated:

May 8, 2024

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The hearing on this motion, currently scheduled on
May 28, 2024, is hereby VACATED.
3
2

28