Juan Saravia v. Dynamex, Inc. et al
Filing
206
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS by Judge Alsup granting 172 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 173 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 181 Motion to Dismiss. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
JUAN SARAVIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
No. C 14-05003 WHA
v.
15
DYNAMEX, INC., DYNAMEX FLEET
SERVICES LLC, DYNAMEX
OPERATIONS EAST, INC., and
DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST, INC.,
16
Defendants.
14
17
18
19
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
CERTAIN OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS
/
INTRODUCTION
In this wage-and-hour collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act defendants
20
move to dismiss several opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice and separately moves to dismiss two
21
categories of opt-in plaintiffs with prejudice. For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motions
22
are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
23
24
STATEMENT
The facts of this case are discussed in greater detail in the order denying defendants’
25
motion to decertify the collective action, issued concurrently with this order. Briefly, our
26
plaintiffs are a collective of individuals who contracted with defendants Dynamex, Inc.,
27
Dynamex Fleet Services LLC, Dynamex Operations East, Inc., and Dynamex Operations West,
28
Inc., (collectively, “Dynamex”) to provide delivery services for Dynamex’s clients.
1
Plaintiffs contend Dynamex incorrectly classified them as independent contractors,
2
rather than as employees, and they bring claims seeking overtime and minimum wages they
3
claim to have been denied on that basis.
4
In October 2015, an order conditionally certified the collective action for the purpose of
5
facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The class administrator received one hundred
6
sixty consent-to-join forms.
7
Dynamex now brings three separate motions seeking to dismiss (i) eighteen individuals
8
without prejudice based on various procedural issues, (ii) fifteen individuals with prejudice for
9
failing to appear at their depositions, and (iii) twenty-five individuals with prejudice for failure
to produce adequate tax records. (The categories overlap in part.) This order follows full
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
briefing on each motion and oral argument.
12
ANALYSIS
13
Rule 37(b)(2) authorizes the imposition of sanctions for not obeying a discovery order,
14
including dismissing the action or entering default judgment. Terminating sanctions, however,
15
are available only “in ‘extreme circumstances’ and where the violation is due to willfulness, bad
16
faith, or fault of the party.” Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002)
17
1.
18
Dynamex moves to dismiss several defendants without prejudice. The subjects of this
MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
19
motion fall into four categories: (i) an individual, Jose Santos, who did not work for Dynamex
20
in California, (ii) seven individuals who filed their consent forms after the deadline, (iii) nine
21
individuals who were not part of the defined collective action yet completed consent forms
22
anyway, (iv) an individual, Charlie Hastanand, who passed away years prior to the
23
commencement of this action.
24
25
26
Plaintiffs do not oppose Dynamex’s motion to dismiss these opt-ins without prejudice
(Dkt. No. 182). Accordingly, this section addresses each category below.
A.
Jose Santos.
27
Opt-in plaintiff Jose Santos never contracted with Dynamex in California. He only
28
contracted in Pennsylvania (Perez Decl. ¶ 5). In February 2015, long before this collective
2
1
action was conditionally certified, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a form on behalf of Santos indicating
2
his consent to join the action (Dkt. No. 15). The order conditionally certifying this collective
3
action limited the scope of the action to individuals who contracted in California. Accordingly,
4
all agree that Santos is not a member of this collective action. Santos’s claims are hereby
5
DISMISSED without prejudice.
6
7
B.
Late Opt-ins.
Seven individuals — Somching Kapkitkajon, Luis Angel Rodriguez, Ricardo Torres,
8
Jeffrey David Dicus, Hany Michaels, Dulce Lopez, and Eric Embleton — filed their forms
9
opting in to this action after the deadline of March 19. None of the late opt-ins offered any
good cause for their late joinder. Plaintiffs do not oppose the dismissal of these seven
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
individuals. Their claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
C.
12
Opt-ins Who Should Never Have Received Consent Forms.
13
Nine individuals — Amrit Sing, Jasbir Sing, Ariel Capeletti, Narsiso Serpas, Andrew
14
Yauw, Manjit Sing, Edwin Kok, Rosa E. Menendez-Turcios, and Douglas Sass — submitted
15
consent forms although they did not fall within the definition of the conditionally certified
16
collective action. They appear to have submitted photocopies of forms sent to individuals who
17
did satisfy that definition, but elected not to opt-in. Their claims are hereby DISMISSED without
18
prejudice.
19
20
D.
Charlie Hastanand.
Opt-in plaintiff Charlie Hastanand passed away in October 2012, several years before
21
this lawsuit was filed. Nevertheless, a consent form was filed on his behalf. Neither side offers
22
any means for treating Hastanand’s estate as a member of this opt-in collective action (nor for
23
evaluating the legal issue of whether Hastanand could be deemed to consent to joining this
24
action). Accordingly, Dynamex argues (and plaintiffs do not dispute) that he should be
25
dismissed without prejudice on that basis.
26
While the motion to dismiss Hastanand without prejudice remained pending, Dynamex
27
served Hastanand with a discovery request seeking his tax documents, which his estate never
28
produced. Dynamex argues that, rather than dismissing Hastanand without prejudice, he should
3
1
be dismissed with prejudice for failing to comply with the order requiring disclosure of tax
2
documents. Dynamex’s positions are inconsistent.
3
Dynamex’s motion to dismiss Hastanand without prejudice is premised on his inability
4
to participate in the litigation. On the other hand, Dynamex seeks to hold Hastanand’s estate
5
accountable for that failure, to the extent the estate holds a claim at all. This order adopts the
6
less severe response of dismissal without prejudice.
7
2.
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT DEPOSITIONS.
8
Dynamex moves to dismiss fifteen opt-in plaintiffs with prejudice for failure to appear at
9
their depositions. In April 2016, without conferring with plaintiffs’ counsel, Dynamex noticed
10
Plaintiffs’ counsel objected, asserting that the depositions were prohibited by the ten-deposition
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
depositions for several opt-ins to occur in May. Discovery was set to close on June 30.
11
12
limit of Rule 30. Plaintiffs counsel brought this issue to the Court amid a flurry of discovery
13
disputes. On June 7, the Court ruled as follows (Dkt. No. 123):
14
[T]he ten-deposition limit of Rule 30 has no application to a case
like this where we have 150 opt-in plaintiffs. Each is liable to sit
for a deposition. Plaintiff’s objection is very unreasonable.
15
16
Each plaintiff’s case must be adjudicated on its own merits and
Dynamex is correct that it is entitled to reasonable discovery as to
each opt-in plaintiff. If an opt-in plaintiff fails to appear for a
deposition, his or her case may be dismissed with prejudice.1
17
18
19
On June 8, the parties met and conferred in the Court’s jury room regarding their
20
remaining discovery disputes. At that meeting, plaintiffs’ counsel informed counsel for
21
Dynamex that six opt-ins — Rafael Nunn, Luis Escovedo, Vladimir Koval, Salvador Rico,
22
Doug Tank, and Zayed Hararah — who had not yet appeared for depositions withdrew their
23
consent to pursue this action. At a hearing before the undersigned following the parties’ meet-
24
1
25
26
27
28
Dynamex quotes this passage in its entirety in its brief, however it reproduces the final sentence as
follows: “If an opt-in plaintiff fails to appear for a deposition, his or her case may be dismissed with
prejudice. . . . No excuses.” Although the phrase “No excuses” did appear at the conclusion of the quoted
order, it appeared in connection with discussion of a different subject (meeting and conferring to schedule
depositions). Dynamex’s reproduction of the quoted material elides fully two paragraphs in order to leave the
false impression that the Court would not even consider any excuse for an opt-in’s failure to appear at a
deposition (Dkt. No. 173, Defs.’ Mtn. at 2). Dynamex repurposes the phrase “no excuses” as a coda on its own
argument (id. at 11).
The Court is disappointed that counsel for Dynamex would engage in such dishonest citation.
4
1
and-confer session, the Court set several dates for depositions of opt-in plaintiffs that had
2
already been noticed for deposition as well as eight further individuals that plaintiffs expected
3
to call as witnesses at trial.
4
The Court stated (Dkt. No. 131, Tr. at 20):
5
All right. Those are your dates. If those people don’t show up and
they’ve got a case, we dismiss the case with prejudice. So you’ve
got to get them there. Now, if you two stipulate to a different date
before June 30, that’s okay. You can do that. It’s got to be in
writing. But, otherwise, they’ve got to show up on the date.
6
7
including confirmation one business day in advance (and greater notice for witnesses requiring
10
a translator). Notwithstanding the schedule set by the Court and the procedure established by
11
For the Northern District of California
The parties subsequently agreed on a procedure for the forthcoming depositions,
9
United States District Court
8
the parties, plaintiffs’ counsel lost touch with seven opt-ins and could not timely confirm their
12
appearances at their depositions. Two more opt-ins failed to appear even though plaintiffs’
13
counsel confirmed their appearance.
14
Dynamex moves to dismiss fifteen opt-ins with prejudice for failing to appear at their
15
depositions: (i) the six who withdrew their consent, (ii) the seven who never confirmed their
16
deposition appearances, and (iii) the two who failed to appear at their depositions despite
17
confirmation.
18
19
20
21
Plaintiffs oppose the dismissal of two opt-in plaintiffs — Angelina Ramirez and Edgar
Valdez — and ask that the remaining dismissals be without prejudice.
A.
Angelina Ramirez.
At the discovery hearing on June 8, the Court ordered the deposition of opt-in plaintiff
22
Angelina Ramirez to occur on June 17. At Ramirez’s request the parties rescheduled for
23
June 20. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to timely confirm Ramirez’s appearance at her deposition or
24
to produce documents on her behalf on the business day before her deposition, pursuant to the
25
procedure established by the parties. An hour and a half after the deadline to confirm her
26
deposition appearance, counsel for plaintiffs informed Dynamex that Ramirez would not
27
appear. Dynamex canceled the court reporter and informed the attorney set to take the
28
deposition in Los Angeles that it had been canceled.
5
1
The next day, Ramirez appeared at Dynamex’s Los Angeles office (where the deposition
2
had been scheduled to occur), documents in hand, ready for her deposition. Without plaintiffs’
3
counsel and without a court reporter or the deposing attorney, Dynamex could not take
4
Ramirez’s deposition in those circumstances.
5
Plaintiffs’ counsel quickly sought to reschedule Ramirez’s deposition. They explained
6
that Ramirez had fallen out of touch because her daughter had been hospitalized following a car
7
accident (Hart Decl., Exh. F; Ramirez Decl. ¶¶ 4–6). Ramirez remains willing to sit for her
8
deposition (id. at ¶¶ 10–11). She produced tax documents in response to Dynamex’s discovery
9
requests.
The scheduling snafu was unfortunate, but it does not warrant the extreme sanction of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
dismissal. Nevertheless, Dynamex is entitled to discovery regarding Ramirez. Accordingly,
12
this order DENIES Dynamex’s motion to dismiss as to Ramirez on the condition that she sit for a
13
six-hour deposition by THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20. Failure to appear for a deposition by that
14
date will result in dismissal with prejudice.
15
16
B.
Edgar Valdez.
Dynamex originally noticed the deposition of opt-in plaintiff Edgar Valdez for January
17
28, 2016. The parties agreed to continue the deposition to June 14 due to medical
18
complications. Although plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed that Valdez would appear for his
19
deposition the previous evening, counsel informed Dynamex minutes before the scheduled start
20
time that Valdez could not appear due to further medical complications of which he learned the
21
day before (Valdez Decl. ¶ 4).
22
Dynamex argues that Valdez’s failure to inform his counsel of his newly-developed
23
medical complication immediately, waiting instead until the following day (the day of his
24
deposition) warrants dismissal with prejudice. Dynamex’s position is too extreme. Valdez
25
remains willing to sit for a deposition and to otherwise participate in the action. Accordingly,
26
this order DENIES Dynamex’s motion as to Valdez on the condition that he sit for a six-hour
27
deposition by THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20. Failure to appear for a deposition by that date will
28
result in dismissal with prejudice.
6
1
2
C.
The Remaining Thirteen Deposition No-Shows.
As to the six individuals who withdrew their consent to join the action after receiving
3
deposition notices, Dynamex does not offer any argument for dismissing those individuals with
4
prejudice. Thus, this order DISMISSES the claims of Rafael Nunn, Luis Escovedo, Vladimir
5
Koval, Salvador Rico, Doug Tank, and Zayed Hararah without prejudice.
6
As to the remaining seven who offered no excuse for failing to appear, the Court
fact that the Court ordered their depositions to occur on a specific date was only due to their
9
disregard for timely noticed depositions in the first place. The opt-ins’ complete disregard for
10
the Court’s orders prejudiced Dynamex by disrupting its preparation for trial and forcing it to
11
For the Northern District of California
repeatedly warned that failure to appear could result in dismissal with prejudice. Indeed, the
8
United States District Court
7
bear costs for translators and court reporters as well as the hours of work spent preparing for
12
depositions that never occurred. This order DISMISSES the claims of Esmeralda Castro, Frank
13
Williams, Alberto Alceda, Rodrigo Flores, Alberto Paez, Miguel Ponce, and Dale Jeske with
14
prejudice.
15
3.
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR
INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE OF TAX DOCUMENTS.
16
As part of the saga of discovery disputes between our litigants, Dynamex sought tax
17
documents from several opt-in plaintiffs. After contentious motion practice, the Court ordered
18
thirty-six opt-ins to produce (Dkt. No. 171):
19
all federal tax records within their possession or that they have
authority to obtain (such as from an accountant or from TurboTax)
relevant to their claims herein for all years from 2008 to the
present during which they contracted with Dynamex and for which
they contend they should have been classified as “employees.”
The records to be produced shall include federal tax returns, all
informational forms, including 1099s, W2s, 1040s, 1120s, 1125As, and all accompanying schedules to the same extent submitted
by the plaintiffs to the Internal Revenue Services.
20
21
22
23
24
The order also required plaintiffs that had already produced some tax documents to
25
supplement their production. It set a deadline of August 15 at noon and stated “[f]ailure to
26
timely comply will likely result in dismissal from this action with prejudice or in an adverse
27
inference.”
28
7
1
Twenty-five opt-ins, however, failed to produce all tax documents or a declaration
2
explaining all deficiencies, although, with one exception (Victor Moreno), all produced some
3
tax records and declarations explaining most deficiencies.
4
With the exception of Victor Moreno, whose failure to produce tax documents or a
5
declaration detailing the reason for any missing documents remains unexplained, the
6
deficiencies in the tax documents produced were relatively minor, to the extent they constituted
7
failure at all. Thus, with the exception of Moreno, all of the remaining plaintiffs substantially
8
complied with the Court’s order, and the Court will not dismiss their claims on the basis of any
9
minor deficiency; however, this is without prejudice to the Court drawing or allowing, on
proper instruction, the jury to draw an adverse inference with regard to evidence relating to
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
those defendants.
12
On the other hand, Moreno’s failure to produce any tax documents or a declaration
13
explaining that failure remains unexplained. Plaintiffs note that Moreno has otherwise been
14
cooperative throughout this lawsuit, including by appearing at his deposition and timely
15
producing documents. Nevertheless, all opt-ins have been on notice of the potential
16
consequences of failing to comply with the Court’s order, and plaintiffs offer no defense
17
whatsoever for Moreno’s noncompliance. Thus, this order DISMISSES Moreno’s claims with
18
prejudice.
19
20
21
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Dynamex’s motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART
as follows:
•
Charlie Hastanand, Jose Santos, Somching Kapkitkajon,
Luis Angel Rodriguez, Ricardo Torres, Jeffrey David Dicus,
Hany Michaels, Dulce Lopez, Eric Embleton, Amrit Sing,
Jasbir Sing, Ariel Capeletti, Narsiso Serpas, Andrew Yauw,
Manjit Sing, Edwin Kok, Rosa E. Menendez-Turcios,
Douglas Sass, Rafael Nunn, Luis Escovedo, Vladimir
Koval, Salvador Rico, Doug Tank, and Zayed Hararah are
DISMISSED without prejudice
•
22
Victor Moreno, Esmeralda Castro, Frank Williams, Alberto
Alceda, Rodrigo Flores, Alberto Paez, Miguel Ponce, and
Dale Jeske are DISMISSED with prejudice.
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
1
•
2
Angelina Ramirez and Edgar Valdez must each sit for a sixhour deposition by OCTOBER 20. Failure to do so will result
in dismissal with prejudice.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated:
September 29, 2016.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
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?