Bowlin v. Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay, Inc.

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins deferring ruling on 29 Motion for Summary Judgment, continuing hearing to December 19, 2012 at 1:00, and finding as moot 34 Motion to Appear by Telephone. (nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

Case No. 12-cv-01593 NC
BILLY BOWLIN,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

ORDER CONTINUING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
HEARING
Re: Dkt. Nos. 29, 34

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF THE
GREATER EAST BAY, INC.,

16

Defendant.

17
Plaintiff Billy Bowlin brings this suit against Defendant Goodwill Industries of the

18

19 Greater East Bay, Inc., his former employer, for withholding of wages, failure to pay
20 overtime, unlawful business practices, and wrongful termination. Bowlin moves for partial
21 summary judgment as to Goodwill’s twenty-sixth affirmative defense, arguing that an
22 agreement between the parties imposing a six month limitation on the time in which Bowlin
23 may bring claims against Goodwill is unconscionable, and thus unenforceable. The issue is
24 whether summary judgment is premature based on the evidence submitted by the parties.
25 Because Goodwill fails to address Bowlin’s assertion of procedural unconscionability, the
26 Court DEFERS ruling on the motion and CONTINUES the hearing.
27 //
28
Case No. 12-cv-01593 NC
ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

I. BACKGROUND

1
2 A.

Bowlin’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

3

Bowlin moves for partial summary judgment arguing that the agreement, which

4 Goodwill asserts bars his employment claims, is unconscionable. Dkt. No. 29. He
5 contends that the agreement is procedurally unconscionable because no one from Goodwill
6 reviewed the terms of the agreement with him, he was not able to discuss or negotiate the
7 terms, and he was given the agreement to sign while he was working. Dkt. No. 29-1.
8 Bowlin argues that the agreement is substantively unconscionable because the sixth month
9 limit it imposes on claims brought by an employee against Goodwill is unreasonable,
10 benefits Goodwill to the detriment of the employee, and contravenes statutory rights
11 afforded by the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law. Dkt. No. 29 at 10-15.
In addition, Bowlin claims the agreement is void under California Labor Code

12

13 § 206.5, which invalidates waivers and releases when wages are due to an employee. Id. at
14 15-16. He argues that because he was made to sign the agreement two months after
15 beginning his job at Goodwill, he was owed wages, and any release of his rights as a
16 condition to receive those wages is void. Id. at 16.
17 B.

Goodwill’s Opposition to the Motion and Objection to Bowlin’s Declaration

18

Goodwill opposes the motion on the grounds that there is an enforceable contract that

19 bars Bowlin’s untimely claims. Dkt. No. 32. It disputes Bowlin’s assertion of procedural
20 unconscionability, id. at 4, and submits the declaration of a human resources administrator
21 who explains Goodwill’s process of presenting the agreement to new employees, dkt. no.
22 32-1. Goodwill argues that there is nothing inherently unreasonable about the six month
23 limitation on bringing claims against it, and that California law recognizes the rights of
24 parties to shorten statutes of limitations by contract. Dkt. No. 32 at 7-8. Goodwill
25 contends that Bowlin’s motion is premature because discovery has just begun and because
26 Bowlin has failed to show that there is no dispute as to the material facts. Id. at 9-10.
27

Goodwill also objects to the admissibility of Bowlin’s declaration. Dkt. No. 32-2.

28 First, Goodwill argues that Bowlin has failed to introduce sufficient proof to support a
Case No. 12-cv-01593 NC
ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

2

1 finding of the facts he alleges, and thus his declaration is irrelevant under Federal Rule of
2 Evidence 104(b). Id. Second, Goodwill argues that Bowlin lacks sufficient personal
3 knowledge to contend that the contract is one of adhesion. Id. These objections are
4 denied. First, Bowlin’s declaration does not present an issue of conditional relevancy.
5 Although his declaration may be terse and even conclusory, it is relevant because it makes
6 the fact of procedural unconscionability, which is of consequence in this case, more
7 probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Goodwill’s attack of the declaration for not providing
8 specifics goes to the credibility of the evidence, which this Court does not weigh on
9 summary judgment. Second, Goodwill misstates Bowlin’s declaration in challenging his
10 personal knowledge. Nowhere in the declaration does Bowlin aver that the contract is one
11 of adhesion. Rather, he presents that legal argument in his motion for summary judgment.
12 C.

Jurisdiction

13

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. All

14 parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with
15 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Dkt. No. 13.
16
17

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment may be granted only when, drawing all inferences and resolving

18 all doubts in favor of the nonmoving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact, and
19 the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex
20 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material when, under governing
21 substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
22 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if “the evidence is
23 such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. Bald
24 assertions that genuine issues of material fact exist are insufficient. Galen v. County of Los
25 Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007).
26

The moving party bears the burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings,

27 discovery, and affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
28 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving
Case No. 12-cv-01593 NC
ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

3

1 party must go beyond the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth
2 specific facts showing that a genuine issue of fact exists for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “If
3 a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to property address another
4 party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c),” the court has discretion to consider the
5 matter undisputed, grant the motion, give the party the opportunity to address the fact
6 properly, or issue any other appropriate order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Upon a showing from
7 the nonmoving party that it cannot present facts to justify its opposition, the court may defer
8 the motion for summary judgment, allow time for discovery, or issue any other appropriate
9 order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
10

III. DISCUSSION

11

Bowlin’s claim of unconscionability is premised in part on the unconscionable

12 procedure by which he was made to sign the agreement. Both procedural and substantive
13 unconscionability must be present in order for a court to refuse to enforce a contract or
14 clause under the doctrine of unconscionability. Soltani v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 258 F.3d
15 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). Bowlin supports his contention of procedural unconscionability
16 with his declaration, in which he states that “a manager presented [him] with a copy of the
17 agreement . . . to initial and sign while [he] was working,” that no one “reviewed the terms
18 or content of the agreement with [him],” and that he “was not able to discuss, negotiate or
19 modify any of the terms or content of the agreement.” Dkt. No. 29-1 ¶¶ 2-4.
20

Goodwill bears a burden under Rule 56(c) to set forth facts showing a triable issue of

21 material fact as to the issue of procedural unconscionability. It submits the declaration of
22 Griselda Guzman, senior human resources administrator. Dkt. No. 32-1. Ms. Guzman
23 describes the general “intake” and orientation procedure and states that she is “intimately
24 familiar with the process by which all employees were presented with this form in 2008.”
25 Id. ¶ 5. Ms. Guzman also admits that she “did not personally give Plaintiff Bowlin the
26 [agreement] at his intake and orientation meeting.” Id.
27

These facts do not address Bowlin’s assertions that he was not given time to review

28 the agreement, that he could not negotiate the terms, and that he was already owed wages at
Case No. 12-cv-01593 NC
ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

4

1 the time the form was given to him to sign, which Rule 56(e) requires. Nor does Goodwill
2 explain why it cannot present facts that specifically respond to Bowlin’s contentions.
3 Goodwill has not made a showing under Rule 56(d) nor explained why the human resources
4 person who signed the agreement Bowlin signed cannot attest to the circumstances under
5 which Bowlin signed the agreement.
IV. CONCLUSION

6
7

In light of the limited evidence presented of procedural unconscionability, the Court

8 DEFERS ruling on Bowlin’s motion for partial summary judgment. The hearing on the
9 motion currently set for November 7, 2012 is CONTINUED until December 19, 2012 at
10 1:00 p.m. Accordingly, Bowlin’s motion to appear at the hearing by telephone is DENIED
11 as moot. Goodwill has twenty-eight days from the date of this order to submit additional
12 facts that respond to Bowlin’s assertion or to make a showing of unavailability under Rule
13 56(d). Bowlin may submit a reply by December 12, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Date: November 2, 2012

_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 12-cv-01593 NC
ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

5